Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Merge request)

Prior to being merged into AfD, the Proposed article mergers process was used to create and close new merge proposals. To begin new merge discussion, editors followed the now-historical instructions at § Historical merge proposal procedure. If a merge is unlikely to be contested, you can still be bold and complete it without initiating a discussion. If you have reason to believe that merging an article could be controversial, nominate it for merging at AfD. If you want to nominate more than one article for merging, you can do so in the same nomination.

Historical merge proposal process

edit

On 24 March 2026, there was consensus to merge the proposed article mergers (PAM) process into AfD. What follows is the historical process for initiating formal merge discussions, prior to the merge with AfD.

If the need for a merge is obvious, editors are encouraged to be bold and simply do it themselves. While bold merges may be reverted entirely, the process and the discussion after the revert results in better articles. Young or short articles and stubs that only differ in wording should be merged immediately. Longer articles that have been separate for a long time are usually discussed first, especially if they are about controversial topics. If the merge is difficult to perform or is potentially controversial, you may now open a discussion following the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

Step 1: Create a discussion

edit

This is usually done on the proposed destination page's talk page. For example, if suggesting that Source page be merged into Destination page, create a proposal in a new section at Talk:Destination page. If the destination does not exist, do not create its talk page.

Create a new topic and include the list of the affected pages and a merge rationale. For example:

== Merge proposal ==
I propose merging [[SOURCEPAGES]] into [[DESTINATIONPAGE]]. 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 [[WP:UNDUE|weighting]] problems. ~~~~

If a merge proposal has been incorrectly created on the source's talk page and the proposed destination is unambiguous and exists, any editor can move the discussion to the talk page of the destination page, to increase its visibility. Use the {{Moved to}} and {{Moved from}} templates.

Optionally, you can notify contributors to the pages involved. One way is to ping them in a comment on the merge proposal, such as {{ping|User1|User2|User3|...}} Notifying contributors to the articles. ~~~~. Alternatively, create a new topic on those users' talk pages with {{subst:Mergenote|PAGENAME|Talk:PAGENAME#Merge proposal}}. Respect neutrality when making invitations to participate in the discussion; selectively notifying editors is not allowed.

Step 2: Tag the relevant pages

edit

To propose merging:

  • two articles together: place {{Merge to|DESTINATIONPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merge proposal|date=June 2026}} at the top of the source page, and {{Merge from|SOURCEPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merge proposal|date=June 2026}} at the top of the proposed destination article or section.
    • If you don't already know which article should be merged and which should remain, place {{Merge|OTHERPAGE|discuss=Talk:PAGE#Merge proposal|date=June 2026}} on both pages.
  • many articles into an existing article: place {{Merge|OTHERSOURCEPAGES|...|target=DESTINATIONPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merge proposal|date=June 2026}} on all source pages, and {{Merge from|SOURCEPAGE1|SOURCEPAGE2|...|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merge proposal|date=June 2026}} at the top of the proposed destination article or section.
  • many articles into a page that doesn't exist yet: place {{Merge|target=DESTINATIONPAGE|SOURCEPAGE1|SOURCEPAGE2|...|discuss=Talk:SOURCEPAGE#Merge proposal|date=June 2026}} on each source page.

Always use the |discuss= parameter to link to the same discussion on all pages; otherwise, two separate discussions could take place.[a]

Step 3: Discuss the merge

edit

Make sure to follow standard talk page guidelines and be clear and concise. Usually, a hybrid discussion/straw poll is used, but remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Example:

* '''Merge''' – The scope of the articles is the same.  ~~~~
* '''Don't merge''' – The resulting article would be too long. ~~~~

During the course of the discussion, editors may suggest merging pages that were not part of the original proposal. When this happens, add the merge templates to those additional pages and ensure that adequate time is provided for editors to comment before the discussion is closed.

Step 4: Close the discussion

edit

During discussion, a rough consensus may emerge to proceed with the merge. Any user, including the user who first proposed the merge, may close the discussion and move forward with the merge if enough time has elapsed (normally 7 days or more) and the consensus is clear or there has been no discussion. Closing of merge discussions differs from closing of requested move discussions in that closings of uncontroversial merge discussions by involved users are allowed.

In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to merge has or has not been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merge proposal or the discussion. The discussion can be listed at the Proposed article mergers noticeboard to attract the attention of more editors. If necessary, you can request that an uninvolved editor close the discussion at the Closure requests noticeboard. If a consensus is formed against the merge shortly after it was performed, it can easily be reversed.

To close a merge discussion, use the {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}} templates.[b] Then:

  • If the discussion is closed with consensus to merge, change the {{Merge to}} tag to {{Being merged to}} in the source page, and change {{Merge from}} to {{Being merged from}} in the destination page. They should remain tagged until the merge is fully performed, so that they are listed on the relevant backlog.
  • If the discussion is closed with consensus against merging or no consensus, remove all the {{Merge}} templates from the destination and source pages, linking to the discussion in your edit summary. Optionally, you can also place {{Old merge}} on the corresponding talk pages.[c]

Step 5: Perform the merge

edit

Following the merge of PAM into AfD, the detailed procedure for carrying out merges is now described at Wikipedia:Merging § Procedure.

Articles proposed for merging

edit

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!

February 2026

edit

1933 Texas tropical storm ⟶ 1933 Atlantic hurricane season (Discuss)

The 1933 Texas tropical storm didn't cause any deaths, and what little impact it had is already largely repeated in the season article. Considering the season article is under 5,000 words, I think it could easily handle the additional content. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - while there was little damage and no deaths, like Tropical Storm Mario, I think there could be a decent article out of the storm. RedAmi! (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RedAmi: - could you double check the article? First off, Mario actually caused a few deaths. Also, it's easier finding info for more recent storms. There just wasn't a lot to write about the storm back in 1933, and almost nothing has been added since it was created 14 years ago. Merging the article would increase the section from 330 words to 494 words, that's it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1958 Cameroonian constitutional referendum, 1958 Comorian constitutional referendum, 1958 French constitutional referendum in French Togoland, 1958 French Sudan constitutional referendum, 1958 Gabonese constitutional referendum, 1958 Ivorian constitutional referendum, 1958 Mauritanian constitutional referendum, 1958 Moyen-Congo constitutional referendum, 1958 Nigerien constitutional referendum, 1958 Ubangi-Shari constitutional referendum, 1958 Upper Voltan constitutional referendum, 1958 Chadian constitutional referendum, 1958 Dahomeyan constitutional referendum, 1958 French Polynesian constitutional referendum, 1958 French Somaliland constitutional referendum, 1958 Guinean constitutional referendum, 1958 Malagasy constitutional referendum, 1958 New Caledonian constitutional referendum, 1958 Saint Pierre and Miquelon constitutional referendum and 1958 Senegalese constitutional referendum ⟶ 1958 French constitutional referendum (Discuss)

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

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

Oppose These referendums are individually notable, because in each case it was an independence referendum for each territory (if they rejected the constitution, the outcome was independence). The most prominent example is 1958 Guinean constitutional referendum, which resulted in Guinea becoming independent and the French government throwing their toys out of the pram. Number 57 14:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All of these are part of the same subject and there are no size concerns that warrant splitting that subject apart. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a single subject though. The referendum did not have the same meaning in overseas territories that it did in metropolitan France. In the territories it was an individual independence referendum, each with their own separate campaigns and nuances. IMO it would be absurd to merge the 1958 Guinean constitutional referendum, a vote that resulted in the country becoming independent, into this article. Number 57 03:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be open to merging to a separate title like 1958 French Union constitutional referendums that covers all of them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I think there is potential for separate articles, although they are not much more than tables of figures at present. The French vote was a very important event, so there is obviously enough matter for a complete article. As for the overseas votes, they are consequential events in each of these countries’ history and path towards independence, so it seems that an article on the local circumstances, political forces etc. can be written. Keriluamox (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – All are related, and realistically those articles are not going to be heavily expanded or rewritten. Better to have a 10-paragraph page than 10 paragraph-long pages. FaviFake (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian federal election results in Brampton, Mississauga and Oakville ⟷ Canadian federal election results in Southern Durham and York (Discuss)

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

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

It might make sense to merge the two Toronto articles together (as the split is somewhat arbitrary), but I'm not as convinced for the 905 region. Should we have an article on how important the 905 is when it comes to Canadian elections? Absolutely. However, the 905 is huge, and each region in the 905 is distinct, and deserves its own article in my opinion. But, the regions as they are currently titled are odd, seemingly arbitrary, and probably need to be re-named with a slight change in focus to reflect the actual subdivisions of the 905 (they were created in 2004, and so their categorization is out of date as the region has a lot more ridings now). Here's what I would recommend:
And the creation of two new articles:
This more closely resembles the regions we used to categorize Results of the 2025 Canadian federal election by riding.-- Earl Andrew - talk 16:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need the riding-by-riding results in these articles? I know the 905's size may make a large page a bit unwieldy, but I'm not sure the level of detail in the riding-by-riding results would be necessary in those pages when those already exist for the "Results in X election by riding" articles.
Regarding the distinction of each place, the reliable sources I've linked (as well as the other sources I have read and seen) seem to group the 905 together much more commonly than split into the various regional municipalities in the area. An additional benefit of this categorization would be the ability to have boundaries that change over time, particularly in areas with a large amount of sprawl (such as Toronto's suburbs). Individual regions occasionally have an impact in individual elections, but it is not common enough to likely be notable across many historical elections. ~UN6892 tc 22:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need the riding-by-riding results in these articles? Yes, that's the whole point of these articles, pretty much. Of course, I don't think it would be necessary to list the riding by riding results if we have an article for the whole 905, as long as the articles on the individual regions stay (as I am proposing). I think an article on the 905 might be a good idea to outline its importance in Canadian elections, but not necessary to get into the details of individual ridings. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am skeptical is because I don't really see how each individual riding in each individual election is vital to the region's history (across multiple elections) and the "Results of X election by riding" pages exist to show riding-by-riding results. ~UN6892 tc 01:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed the Toronto merge since neither of us were opposed to it. ~UN6892 tc 20:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ctenobethylus goepperti and Ctenobethylus oblongiceps ⟶ Ctenobethylus (Discuss)

Ctenobethylus goepperti and Ctenobethylus oblongiceps are content forks of Ctenobethylus, and per current WP:paleo best practice should be covered on the genus page, as evidenced by a very large proportion of the prose in each section being about the genus and not the species.--Kevmin § 00:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FET y de las JONS ⟷ Movimiento Nacional (Discuss)

TLDR: I propose to merge the article with FET y de las JONS, since "Movimiento Nacional" appears to be merely a second name of the Falange, as said in the current version of the lede, and the article itself appears to be redundant and containing little information on its subject.

The main problem of this article has always been that it never really explained what the "National Movement" was. The definition provided in the lede prior to my edits was "the governing institution of Spain". While very unclear, it also turned out to be not based on the source it cited, which described the definitions of the "National Movement" proposed by the Francoists themselves long after the "Movement" has been established and did not contained the definition given in the lede. In January, I read a little, and it the "Movimiento Nacional" appeared to be just a second name for the Falange (perhaps used more often that the original one), so I edited the definition in the lede into what it is now. No one has changed it, so I assume I was right that it was just a second name for the ruling party. This explains the major problems that this article has always had: half of the information, dedicated to the topic of the article, cites no sources at all and does not explain the difference between the Falange and the Movement (since there is none). The other half is the section "Francoist "families"" which is based on source material, but has no mentions of the "National Movement" - this section about the factions within the bureacracy would be more due in the articles on Francoist Spain / Francoism proper and on FET y de las JONS (since all the bureaucracy were nominal members of the Falange, as said in Paul Preston (2003). The Politics of Revenge: Fascism and the Military in 20th-century Spain. Routledge. p. 110. ISBN 1134811136. and F. L. Carsten (1982). The Rise of Fascism, Second Edition. University of California Press. p. 203.).

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

  • Oppose. "Movimiento Nacional" is not a "second name of the Falange", and it was you who edited the article to look like in the current version (), so it looks weird to claim "Movimiento Nacional" appears to be merely a second name of the Falange, as said in the current version of the lede, and the article itself appears to be redundant and containing little information on its subject. Well of course: you edited it to look like it appears now.
While the term "Movement" was frequently associated with the FET y de las JONS party, these two were not strictly the same, as the Movement encompassed other aspects and institutions of the Franco regime. There are multiple sources pointing to this differentiation between Falange and Movimiento. To point out a few examples:
One of the main points of confusion is that, because Franco's regime lasted for four decades, the relevance of FET y de las JONS varied over time (it gradually decreased in favour of other factions). From the late 1950s and the 1960s, mentions to the party itself had almost entirely disappeared from the legal scheme of the regime, and the term "Movement" was used to refer to the whole thing (including whatever elements remained from the core party itself). But the scope of the two articles is different, and the two should not be confused into being the same thing, nor should be portrayed as fully overlapping elements. As a result, I not only oppose the proposed merge, but I also oppose Opostylov's edits on 17 January 2026 that significantly altered the article's scope to make it look as fully overlapping with FET y de las JONS (and, ultimately, are being used as an attempt to justify this proposal). Impru20talk 10:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While it should not be assumed that both items were the same thing (neither one a strict continuation of the other), the ambiguous, tricky, fuzzy nature of the so-called National Movement, and in practical terms, perhaps also the limited source-based growth potential of the article of the National Movement as some kind of superstructure perhaps suggests that a redirect to a subsection of FET y de las JONS or Francoist Spain titled "National Movement" or "FET y de las JONS and National Movement" dealing with the subtleties could work too. After all, little of the current content is fully about the topic. The bit about the Francoist families could be here as well as it could be in Francoist Spain#Francoism. A recurring overarching problem related to this is that the article Francoist Spain is both a dumping ground for content on the period of Spanish history between 1939 and 1975, for the dictatorship as a political regime itself, and for the sketch of some kind of kind of purported coherent ideology ("Francoism"). Sadly but, needless to say, not unexpectedly, in addition to the topical awkwardness and some degree of poor original synthesis, it falls short in practically all of its aims.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great Seal of Lithuania ⟶ Grand Chancellor of Lithuania (Discuss)

I propose merging Great Seal of Lithuania into Grand Chancellor of Lithuania. I am not convinced that Great Seal of Lithuania meets WP:GNG. The seal, issued in the ruler’s name, was closely linked to the office of the chancellor; it was the main instrument and symbol of his authority. In fact, virtually all the content of the article on the seal falls within the scope of the article on the chancellor, and separating them effectively amounts to repeating the same content. Marcelus (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worthwhile to keep them separate, because the seal itself as an object was very valuable historically speaking.--+JMJ+ (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@+JMJ+: I agree that the Great Seal of Lithuania should be a separate article because this object is highly notable and was used from the Middle Ages until 1795, and is described in WP:RS texts as a separate notable object from the officer Grand Chancellor of Lithuania who only possessed this notable object (e.g. see: book The History of Lithuania, p. 76; book Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštija ir jos tradicija, p. 167, search for Lithuanian words "didysis Lietuvos antspaudas"; Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia's article about the Union of Lublin, search for a Lithuanian word "antspaudas"; catalog of the National Museum in Warsaw where its English name is used; English publication by the State Archive in Warsaw, p. 8, where the Grand Chancellor of Lithuania is not even mentioned; establishment story of the Vilnius University which is presented in the article and is supported by two WP:RS; etc.). The Grand Chancellor of Lithuania also possessed the Lithuanian Metrica and it would be an absurd to merge the article Lithuanian Metrica to the article about the Grand Chancellor of Lithuania because the object Lithuanian Metrica is also highly notable separately from the officer who historically possessed it. There are many articles about other national seals in the category "National seals". Moreover, the article about the Great Seal of Lithuania has potential for further expansion (e.g. analysis of different periods Great Seals of Lithuania, usage, etc.). -- Pofka (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Today additional reliable sources were added to the article about the Great Seal of Lithuania. For example, in Wojciech Krawczuk's book Pieczęcie Zygmunta III Wazy (pages 34–35) a detailed analysis of the appearance of two versions of the Great Seal of Lithuania from the reign of Sigismund III Vasa is presented. Articles about other countries similar status seals: Great Seal of Australia, Great Seal of Canada, Great Seal of Scotland, Great Seal of the United States demonstrates how such separate articles about national seals can be developed and article about the Great Seal of Lithuania definitely has the same potential to be expanded, improved as a separate article. The Great Seal of Lithuania is not less notable than these Australian/Canadian/Scottish/American national seals. -- Pofka (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many seals are separately notable. Whether this one is depends on whether the sources in the article about the Seal meet WP:SIGCOV. Do they? If they do, no merge needed. Otherwhise, merge. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@+JMJ+ @Piotrus: it seems to me that the topic is borderline WP:SIGCOV; I have not encountered any study that would describe this seal as a separate entity. Primarily because there was no single "Great(er) Seal of Lithuania" - after a ruler’s death it was destroyed and a new one was prepared (which sometimes took some time) with different set of CoAs and legend. So in total there were more than a dozen of them. Moreover, the "Lesser Seal of Lithuania", contrary to what the name suggests, was equal in status to the greater seal and had the same legal significance. It would therefore be logical, if they are to be described at all, to cover them together in a single article: Greater and Lesser Seal of Lithuania. Moreover equally notable are also the Crown seals.Marcelus (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lesser Seal of Lithuania does not exist. Maybe the best outcome would be to expand the Greater article with info on Lesser seal and rename it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe simply Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania? It would be good to get an input from more people. Marcelus (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Seal of Lithuania is highly important in the history of Lithuania and internationally (given the historic territory size of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), so a separate article Great Seal of Lithuania should be kept. The great and lesser seals of Lithuania have some similarities, however they historically were completely different objects, so one article about great and lesser seals of Lithuania would not be a viable solution and I oppose that.--Ed1974LT (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Grand Chancellor of Lithuania is a political and administrative office. The Great Seal of Lithuania is a physical artifact, a symbol of statehood, and a subject of heraldry and sigillography. While the Chancellor held the seal, merging them conflates the officeholder with the instrument of the office. We do not, for example, merge the Great Seal of the Realm into the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, nor the Great Seal of the United States into the United States Secretary of State. There are academic papers and books dedicated specifically to the evolution of Lithuanian state seals, their iconography, the engravers who crafted the matrices, and their legal use on state documents. The fact that the current Wikipedia article might not currently reflect this depth is a reason for expansion, not deletion or merging. Karnemir (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Borei Pri HaGafen ⟶ Kiddush (Discuss)

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

These are two completely different articles. Kiddush deals with a mitzvah that is practiced on Shabbats and holidays, and Borei Pri HaGafen is a blessing that is said every day. TheRabbi613 (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that both need to be worked on and expanded. But they must not be Merge. TheRabbi613 (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Kiddush is also the term for the prayer not just the ceremony. Andre🚐 23:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Siemens Viaggio Comfort ⟶ Siemens Vectouro (Discuss)

Simple. Since this article covers the original Railjet trains (which is mentioned in this article). I propose to merge the Siemens Viaggio Comfort article into this article. Tententenny (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I concur Yuezhi Huang (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The RJ1 (or Viaggio Comfort) is based upon old SGP-Bodywork
The ComfortJet (Vecturo) is apart from the cab car ideantical to the RJ1
The RJ2 (Viaggio Next Level) on the other hand: It is a almost a complete new construction method including Low Floor and High Floor parts. That doesn't fit the Viaggio Comfort Family which is High-Floor Only. DerKaiserschmarren (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I put this onto a healthy merger discussuon because for some reason the Railjet 1 (the Viaggio Comfort) is included in this article even tho they are part of a different product range. Although both of those NMU's are highly identical to one another. I do know feel like there is an overlap, It did not help by the fact the article of Viaggio Next Level no longer exist and it instead redirects to this article. Although i open a healthy debate here if the merger would be approved or not. Tententenny (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the german article we actually, just seperated all into their individual Articles with only one short that is combined. Multiple people liked it this way, so probably it is a good Idea to take a look at it. It is Called "Railjet (Zuggattung)"
But I won't stop you from merging them. It just could be more work to seperate them again later on in the long run. ;) DerKaiserschmarren (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh the Railjet article in the English Wikipedia is very outdated by now ever since ÖBB announced they ordered Stadler KISS and the questionable order for Siemens Mireo EMU's and also route changes. I suggest the Railjet article should emphasize on the train service and not the rolling stock. The rolling stock that Railjet uses especially the Viaggio ones instead be put into here. Tententenny (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yep using the "Railjet" Article for the service instead of the rolling stock would be ideal.
It can then have links to the main Articles of each type.
  • Railjet 1
  • Railjet 2
  • Railjet 3 (Class 4706)
  • Railjet M (Class 4864)
(ComfortJet could be added)
Actually I did a big part of that rework in the German Wiki, so if needed I could probably help. DerKaiserschmarren (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do think merging is a good idea as Siemens stopped using the Viaggio names a year back and started referring them all as Vectouro in the advertising materials. As the Vectouro term getting more referred in the future it is natural to merge the two articles into one under the latest brand name.
These two generations of product are strongly connected as low-floor and high-floor is just an modular option for the latest Vectouro products (ČD Comfortjet contains only high-floor sections) thus no strong proof for separate them as two individual products. Yuezhi Huang (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tententenny (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When the manufacturer cannot figure out what their product is called; the solution is usually WP:COMMONNAME—follow from the WP:RS, because that is probably what the readership are also going to search for and wish to read about. All the obscure (brand) names can then be relegated to some disambiguation/redirect page. i.e.: The solution here is probably sensible length articles about actually delivered orders, verses overly-long and confusing abominations attempting to cover everything. —Sladen (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Therian ⟶ Therianthropy (Discuss)

Proposed merge of Therian into Therianthropy (disambiguation) –

Redundant. Abesca (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Disambiguation, WikiProject Mythology, WikiProject Skepticism, WikiProject Animals, WikiProject Transhumanism, WikiProject Animal rights, WikiProject Spirituality, WikiProject Sociology, and WikiProject Anthropology have been notified of this discussion. Abesca (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Therians the real animals do not have any "anthropy" in them, so putting them together with humans does not seem to be correct. Perhaps a pruning of both entries would eliminate the duplication? Викидим (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Merge the two pages and name it Therian; therian could be seen as short for therianthropy, which would make the term include all of Therianthropy while also solving the issue that the subclass of mammals and genus of moths both cannot be placed under the name therianthropy. I agree that these two pages are redundant. Shadestar474 (they/he) (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with staying at the title Therian, per WP:DABCOMBINE. Abesca (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The structure is better as it is currently, the principle problem being that 'a member of the mammalian subclass Theria' is so different from 'shapeshifting' that a merge startle and mislead readers. Klbrain (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just redirect Therian to Theria, and then put a hatnote there linking to Therianthropy? Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 17:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ponhea To ⟶ Thommo Reachea II (Discuss)

Having just wasted hours trying to improve the English translation of Ponhea To, I noticed the link to this article, and see that they both appear to be the same person, and the other was originally a redirect. However, the dates and names do not tally and it needs someone with more knowledge and interest to do a proper job on sorting out what's what here. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hatfield Moors ⟶ Thorne and Hatfield Moors (Discuss)

Hatfield Moors seems to be a subset of Thorne and Hatfield Moors. There seems no good reason for there to be two articles in this "one a superset of the other" relationship. I propose merging the former into the latter. (An alternative might be for this T&M Moors to become solely T.Moors.)

While we're here, we should also consider the relationship of Hatfield Chase to these articles, and possibly merge that.

If the decision is "don't merge", then at the very minimum the text of the articles should briefly explain how they relate to each other, possibly via hatnotes.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob1960evens: for comment from his expertise is geographical topics in this region. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the Hatfield Moors article is about an SSSI. The Thorne and Hatfield Moors article is about the geography and industrial exploitation of the peat moors, while the Hatfield Chase article is about the land drainage of the area. While Thorne and Hatfield Moors mentions an SSSI, it is not the same one as mentioned in Hatfield Moors, since one was designated in 1981 and the other in 1954. Interestingly, List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in South Yorkshire indcludes Hatfield Moors SSSI, listed in 1954, and an SSSI called Thorne Crowle and Goole Moors which is a little smaller than the one mentioned in the Thorne and Hatfield Moors article, and was designated in 1970. I think this would need careful study to understand what is going on before any attempt is made to merge articles. I would not be in favour of merging Hatfield Chase with Thorne and Hatfield Moors, because I think the resulting article would be too unweildy, but a brief explanation of how the articles fit together would be helpfui. This could probably be done by adding some text to the See also sections. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Turkestan Governor-Generalship ⟷ Russian Turkestan (Discuss)

Proposed merge of Russian Turkestan with Turkestan Governor-Generalship Proposal to split into two different articles was not accepted in talk page, yet editor went ahead with it. There is no need to have two pages about the same thing. Angel Eyes ● 💬 05:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Urban areas in the European Union ⟶ Urban areas in Europe (Discuss)

I noticed that this page already indicates which countries are in the European Union. It seems logical that merging Urban areas in the European Union into this article would make sense. Logoshimpo (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
agreed ~2025-36333-31 (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Logoshimpo, any thoughts on how this should be merged? The European Union article seems to have more information on each urban area that the Europe article doesn't accommodate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Urban areas in the European Union only lists urban areas over 500,000 inhabitants but this list lists all entries. In other words, this list is exhaustive and comprehensive. There is a section of Important notes which might have pertinent material which could be retained. I haven't read all the citations and both articles thoroughly so I don't think if I were to merge the articles that the outcome would be satisfactory. Logoshimpo (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that one of them is more complete than the other. Furthermore, since various definitions of what an urban area is exist, I wonder whether any such list could ever be called "exhaustive and comprehensive". Dżamper (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of definitions do you have in mind? I'm aware of functional area and the nordic countries have their own definition of urban area as defined by their statistical bureaus. I think we could merge the articles together if european union is treated as a section. Logoshimpo (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Functional areas are areas that are functionally dependent on a city. Urban areas are areas that are connected with a city by a contiguous urban fabric. So, two related but different and parallel concepts. But even for the definition of the urban area alone, there will always exist different delimitation methods of how big that area is. What is the threshold to be considered urban. Are parks, industrial areas, waterbeds "contiguously urban", etc. And actually, there is currently no source provided which would do that comprehensively. The UN list doesn't (has definitions that vary on country-by-country basis due to lack of data), neither does the EU (Eurostat has only functional areas, Copernicus could, yet provides figures only for "(dense) cores (of) urban areas", not the whole urban areas). Demographia is IMO the closest, but is not generally considered a truly reliable source. Dżamper (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - I took a quick look at the articles, I think they use different statistical bases that would be difficult to merge well, also it looks like the data in the EU article is more up to date than proposed destination article, but I'm not sure if more recent data is available for all of the non-EU cities. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Does my reply to Dżamper change your mind? Logoshimpo (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You mean having a separate section for the EU data? If that was the proposal then I wouldn't see how the merge would serve readers better than having a separate article. I thought the purpose of the merge in this case was to eliminate WP:OVERLAP, but if the data is different enough that it needs its own section, I think its clearer for readers to just have the separate articles. I agree that there is some overlap in these lists, but I think it needs to be clearer how they would be merged without making the information difficult to parse. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Upiór ⟶ Vampire (Discuss)

I'm proposing Upiór be merged into Vampire for the reasons I've mentioned here above and summarised at Talk:Vampire. These reasons are:
  • Upiór is almost certainly not the common name for the topic of its articles, making that title unsuitable. It's one of two different Polish words for vampire, and I don't even think it's the most common one used in Polish, let alone the word English speakers would most associate with vampires in the context of Slavic and Turkic folklore.
  • Etymologically related Slavic words/synonyms currently redirect to different articles. South Slavic Vampir redirects to Vampire, but East Slavic Upyr redirects to Upiór. The various intermediate forms have to pick one or the other as a target. It would be better if all variants had the same target.
  • The two articles overlap in content and scope, resulting in unhelpful redundancy. The topic of Upiór is vampires in Slavic and Turkic folklore. Its content and scope overlaps with Vampire § Etymology and word distribution and Vampire § Folk beliefs. Why have two articles that go into detail about etymology and folklore regarding vampires?
Solution 1, Merge Upiór to Vampire

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

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

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

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

I would oppose merging any of the content from here into the vampire article because this is not an FA and none of the content here is up to FA quality, while the vampire article is an FA. I would also oppose a split because Vampires are entirely in folklore already. It's the largest part of that article. I have no other opinion on whether this article should be deleted/kept, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Vampires are entirely in folklore already
Vampire also covers modern/popular culture (eg. film, TV, video games, etc.), literary vampires (which differ greatly from those of folklore; a subtopic which has its own article at Vampire literature), and the purported scientific/sociological causes of vampire belief. None of that is folklore, though some of it may be inspired by folklore. – Scyrme (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another option (Solution 3) might be to merge it into Vampire folklore by region if merging into Vampire or using material from Upiór and Vampire to make Vampires in folklore is untenable. Comapring the content, this actually seem less straightforward than merging into Vampire as there's less shared material. Merging with Vampire (Solution 1) has the advantage that it duplicates at lot of the content of Upiór already, such as all the material about etymology. Any material which would clearly lower the quality of Vampire could just be left out of the merge. – Scyrme (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If "the topic of Upiór is vampires in Slavic and Turkic folklore", I suggest moving Upiór to Vampires in Slavic and Turkic folklore. I oppose merging it into Vampire – the overlaps are already handled by links between the articles; the Vampire article is already long enough; as mentioned above, any material merged in from Upiór would need to be at FA standard to avoid undermining Vampire's FA badge; and finally, on less clear ground, I imagine that bringing all the vampire-related material on Wikipedia together into one article woud just create a mess, so using a desire to do that, as part of a merge argument, sets a risky precedent. --Northernhenge (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that bringing all the vampire-related material on Wikipedia together into one article
@Northernhenge: That's not the point of this. I'm not suggesting merging Vampire literature, Vrykolakas, Vourdalak, Vampire folklore by region, etc. into Vampire. Vampire already duplicates much of Upiór, making the appropriate target of associated redirects unclear. Renaming the article wouldn't help with the redirect situation, namely that redirects that are etymologically related, which form a spectrum of variation, and are synonymous take readers to different locations. Where the content would not affect the quality it can be copied over. Where it would affect the quality, it can be omitted (or, perhaps, merged into Vampire folklore by region instead). The redundant content would not need to be copied over.
If we want to be very cautious about the quality, we could implement the merge in a draft page first then move the changes over once there's consensus that the quality has been maintained. – Scyrme (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Way of Horus (Ancient Egypt) ⟶ Via Maris (Discuss)

This should be merged with the newly created Way of Horus (Ancient Egypt) given the WP:Overlap. They are the same route and are not large articles. Would be better to have one article covering the complete history of the route. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aszx5000, this has gone unopposed and you should be good to carry out a merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal to merge the articles is not suitable, since they are of a significantly different nature in terms of text, references and, importantly, historical inconsistency. Via Maris is a geographical description of the routes in the period from the era of Alexander the Great [1], Way of Horus is part of the history of Egypt from the Old Kingdom of Egypt to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty of Egypt, but especially in the New Kingdom of Egypt It includes the construction of fortresses and the organization of military and personnel security along the northeastern coast of the Sinai Peninsula to the Egyptian border town of Rafah. So merging both of these articles would create a kind of freakish dagwood Zemanst (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Zemanst. While their references and eras are undoubtly different, it does seem like that they are pretty much the same route? Imho, it is always better to have one comprehensive article on a subject than to split over two articles. Less confusion, and you can handle the transitions from one era to another without confusing the reader? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I prepose an alternative, to revise the article Via Maris, so that it would be respected its historical development and importance in the era of the loss of Egyptian sovereignty after the Persian conquest, the period of the Wars of the Diadochi after the death of Alexander the Great, the rise of the Ptolemies and the events of the Romans. Basically, it is also related to the system of transport routes in the Levant and its historical development. However, I will have to study the relevant sources for this, if possible with an active approach.
However, there are other alternatives available, to combine the articles Via Maris and King's Highway (ancient), which lacks relevant references, and another valuable processing Incense trade route. As you can see, there is a considerable chaotic dispersion in this area of the same subject series.[2]What is your opinion on this? Zemanst (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt#Merge proposal for Via Maris and Way of Horus to see if we can get any more participation. I do think that it will be less confusing to have one main article rather than create an arbitrary interface, but lets see for a few weeks what the WP AE says? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like one of the most important sources here is Hoffmeier and Moshier 2013. Unfortunately, the online version of it that is linked here omits all the illustrations except the general map that forms Figure 1 in the paper. But if I am reading the text correctly, the Via Maris was distinct from the Ways of Horus for at least part of the route, at least if one thinks of the Ways of Horus as a specific road (some scholars think the term referred to a region instead of a specific route).
The difference seems to be that a geological shift after 1000 BC made the land near the mouth of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile solid enough that Pelusium could be built on it, and formed the barrier islands that enclose Lake Bardawil. So the Via Maris ran from Pelusium east along these barrier islands, in contrast to the Ways of Horus, which started at Tjaru/Tel Habuwa, well inland from Pelusium, and ran along the mainland coast.
Something I wonder is whether the term "Ways of Horus" was still in use in the Egyptian language at the time the Via Maris was in use, and if so, whether the term was applied to the barrier-island route. If it were, then both these articles could be merged under the Ways of Horus title. But it may be best to keep them separate for now. A. Parrot (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ↑ Figueras, Pau (2000). From Gaza to Pelusium : materials for the historical geography of north Sinai and southwestern Palestine <332 BCE - 640 CE>. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University.
  2. ↑ "Ancient Jewish History: Via Maris". Jewish Virtual Library.

March 2026

edit

∆ ⟷ Delta (Discuss)

Proposed merge of Delta with ∆ –

∆ (U+2206 INCREMENT) is some unusual character; the disambiguated meanings are more likely to be written as the regular letter delta (Δ). This should either be renamed to Δ (disambiguation), or merged to the Delta disambiguation page, where the former title currently redirects and which has additional meanings listed. 1234qwer1234qwer4 04:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see the point in merging a shorter list into a much longer one. If a reader looks up this specific character, how does forcing them to read a longer list which contains items that do not match that lookup possibly make their navigation more efficient? (Oppose) --Joy (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy I think the point is that there's not enough difference between the two, they're basically the same character. I'm not even sure of the difference myself. FaviFake (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, so you're approaching it from the angle of one character already pointing there - Δ should be the same as ∆?
I was primarily looking at the idea of merging the two disambiguation lists. As there's other meanings to the word "delta" beyond these ones, and yet there's quite a few of these, I'd be okay with keeping them in their own list focused on the symbol. And for the title of that list, pick whichever one is the more conventional one. --Joy (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yeah but, i mean, this dab itself isn't even focused on the symbol. The dabs cover the same letter. FaviFake (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to essentially splitting a Δ (disambiguation) off from Delta, which would combine meanings from this page and from Delta#Science and technology (from which a lot should then be removed). 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the question is really - does the content of Delta (letter) serve as a good primary topic or broad-concept article for all delta-like letters/symbols? --Joy (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that is really the question here (though I would answer with no), since essentially all meanings are denoted with the actual letter. On second thought, it might therefore make sense to just merge all relevant meanings from both disambiguation pages into Delta#Uppercase. 1234qwer1234qwer4 08:03, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We should do that if they can be a coherent list section. And if it's consistent, if both Δ stopped redirecting to Delta (letter) as well as ∆. For context, the current Delta list is 11 PageDowns on my current browser, so just sending readers there in general without a subsection would be making things more difficult for them and should be avoided if possible. --Joy (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: seems like something like Triangle symbol might be a better disambiguation. that way all of these could be covered, plus any of the topics which use them:
  • U+0394 Δ GREEK CAPITAL LETTER DELTA
  • U+2206 ∆ INCREMENT
  • U+2207 ∇ NABLA
  • U+25B3 △ WHITE UP-POINTING TRIANGLE
  • U+25BD ▽ WHITE DOWN-POINTING TRIANGLE
  • U+25B7 ▷ WHITE RIGHT-POINTING TRIANGLE
  • U+25C1 ◁ WHITE LEFT-POINTING TRIANGLE
~ oklopfer (💬) 04:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First session of the 10th National People's Congress ⟶ 10th National People's Congress (Discuss)

The article, First session of the 10th National People's Congress I just came across while doing the current unreferenced articles backlog drive WP:MAR26. I think this article could be merged into this one, while I am sure it is somewhat notable, I don't think it needs to be its own standalone article, especially considering its current state. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Martha ⟶ 1969 Atlantic hurricane season (Discuss)

Merge Hurricane Martha?

The season article still is on the short side, and so is Martha's article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Oppose mainly due to the fact Martha’s the only TC to make landfall in Panama on record. Surely it can be expanded no? MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 13:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The NHC wallets and reanalysis don't have anything else, and even a Google search in Spanish doesn't yield anything at a quick glance, one cited Wikipedia, one mentioned how Otto 16 became the latest hurricane in the Caribbean, or just acknowledging that it happened. The Spanish Wiki's article's on Martha is just a translation of the English article. I'm all for someone making a Martha article if they can get reliable local sources, maybe newspapers and reports? But right now, the Martha article doesn't have that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MarioProtIV did this result in any additional non-news analysis, or cause it to be used as a case study in reliable sources? Even that wouldn't be a guarantee that they should be covered separately, but I'd say it's at least the bare minimum necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Englishisation ⟶ Anglicism (Discuss)

Merge from Englishisation –

Both essentialy speak about the same. As for merge tarhet, "Anglicism" seems a more establisher term. Ngram seems to support my impression. But Im am open to other options:

  • Option 1 Englishisation to Anglicism
  • Option 2 Anglicism to Englishisation

--Altenmann >talk 16:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

edit

The Animals (British album) ⟷ The Animals (American album) ⟶ The Animals (album) (Discuss)

The Animals (U.S. album) and The Animals (UK album) have very little content and both are stubs. I think that they could be included in this one. For an example, please see The Clash (album). They have been released in the UK in 1977 and in the U.S. in 1979, their track listings are totally different, the UK version was their debut album while the U.S. version was their 2nd studio album. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only the UK one is a stub, the US one isn't. If this was the only outlier, maybe it would make sense to merge them. But the whole Animals album sequence is different between the UK and the US, with sometimes the same name used for different albums, sometimes slightly different names used for different albums, etc ... it's a confusing mess to those not familiar with 1960s British pop music practices, and I think in this case it's best served by keeping the articles separate. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current asset ⟶ Asset (Discuss)

I propose merging Current asset into Asset. I think the content in Current asset can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems.

Current asset was also created in 2003 and is still a stub, and the Current asset section in this article already covers much of the same content. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, although alternately it and fixed asset could be merged to create an article explaining that dichotomy, perhaps under the title fixed and current assets or current and fixed assets. But in any case, the main concept is asset and so that should have coverage of these concepts. Arlo James Barnes 22:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Duncnbiscuit as above, but I would also be happy with Arlo James Barnes's alternative approach. BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. I would call the new article Asset (financial accounting) Geysirhead (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Or better Asset (finance). Actually the Asset (economics) already redirected to that article. Geysirhead (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AK-257 ⟶ AZP S-60 (Discuss)

I would like to discuss if it would be beneficial to merge AK-257 into AZP S-60. I have some reasons for suggesting so and a few concerns as well.

On pages such as S-300 missile system or S-125 Neva/Pechora, naval variants of the original system are explained in that article, and not separately, and so this seems it would be inconsistent to have a separate article for the naval variant (AK-725*) of the original (S-60). I also have not seen separate articles for variants unless it is something notably different, and I do not believe that is the case here. *Also, the talk page for AK-257 has an entry from many years ago about the name, and from my brief searching it seems AK-257 is not a proper designation. I had thought about trying to fix it over there but I figure perhaps this issue could be solved in the process of merging, should that ever happen.

My concern for this is that in this page for the S-60, as I have seen with plenty of other articles, different variants are presented in list form, and not individual subsections like the two examples I cited prior. And so perhaps the need for a significant rewrite to include all the information from the merged article would be a reason not to merge. animeweebman ^^ (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merge proposal on the basis that the naval variant (whatever it's actually called) is not particularly notable and appears to essentially the same gun as the S-60. Similar guns like the Bofors L/60 do not have separate articles for their innumerable variants. StSeanSpicer (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Bloody Sunday (1972) ⟶ Bloody Sunday (1972) (Discuss)

I propose merging Timeline of Bloody Sunday (1972) into Bloody Sunday (1972). I think the content in the timeline page can easily be incorporated in the context of this article (if not already the case), and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. This page (Bloody Sunday (1972)) already has an external link to the sole source of the timeline page (Timeline of Bloody Sunday (1972)).

An issue with Timeline of Bloody Sunday (1972) is it is an article that exclusively relies on The Widgery Report (from Cain website) which violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view. OwlCritique (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE: the Timeline article is not a timeline but a retelling of events based on a single source, as has been acknowledged Billsmith60 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could you maybe elaborate on the rationale for keeping Timeline of Bloody Sunday (1972) as a standalone article, since it presents a one-sided account of events? I feel that an external link to the original source might be sufficient for readers who wish to explore that level of detail. OwlCritique (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there are several problems, I feel. First, the Widgery Tribunal needs an article of its own. At present it links to a three-paragraph section of that on Lord Widgery. One idea is to use the existing text in the latter to preface the 'timeline' article, add to the latter to avoid the overreliance on a single source and then rename it to the "Widgery Tribunal" via a page move. The Bloody Sunday article, at its "Widgery Inquiry" section, could indeed link to this article. Also the name "timeline" is also misleading, for it isn't one: I'd expect it to be more structured and show the times at which key things happened. Merely merging this 'timeline' article as it stands into Bloody Sunday is not an option, IMHO Billsmith60 (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the 'timeline' article needs a complete overhaul... possibly be retitled The Widgery Tribunal, including detailed information about scholarly analyses of the tribunal and later criticisms that led to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. The article as it stands right now does not meet Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. Maybe it could be moved into a Draft page for the time being? OwlCritique (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a retelling, then it either needs to be blanked or deleted instead of merged, especially if it's a retelling from a single source. Wikipedia doesn't spin off articles like this for alternate tellings. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In its current form, the article is just a paraphrasing of a biased/flawed legal document (Widgery Report) describing events of Bloody Sunday. If you feel its appropriate, nominate the article for deletion. OwlCritique (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible, if it would suit everyone, if someone was to create a timeline, with reference to both trials, as-well as witness statements if possible? And then rename the current existing timeline to the Widgery trial and have another separate article for the saville report? It seems like it might solve most of the issues that you have been bringing up and it allows for a non-biased timeline to be merged into the article of discussion! Stephen.frecknall (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A timeline (with specific tines) needs to be part of this article for sure. There is already an existing article for the Saville Inquiry, so as I've observed there should be one for the Widgery Tribunal. Why not charge ahead on this basis and let others know what you've come up with? Billsmith60 (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl disaster#Long-term effects ⟶ Effects of the Chernobyl disaster (Discuss)

I think Chernobyl disaster § Long-term effects should be merged into § Long-term health effects and in particular Chernobyl disaster § Human impact into § Human health effects studies. They cover the same topic and are therefore duplicates. This page is better suited to explain the long term effects. FaviFake (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@FaviFake: I'd call this a WP:SPLIT proposal rather than a merge, given that both article will remain afterwards; you may wish to rework the templates, as the actions required should this have support are best described at WP:PROPERSPLIT. Klbrain (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically this would be a WP:SECTIONMOVE proposal, but that process's backlog goes back to January 2021 so I opted for a merge tag to attract more attention... which clearly hasn't worked. I'll probably switch to using the section move templates in the future if nobody responds. But since you're here, do you agree with the... whatever it is I am proposing? FaviFake (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl disaster#Human impact ⟶ Effects of the Chernobyl disaster (Discuss)

I think Chernobyl disaster § Long-term effects should be merged into § Long-term health effects and in particular Chernobyl disaster § Human impact into § Human health effects studies. They cover the same topic and are therefore duplicates. This page is better suited to explain the long term effects. FaviFake (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@FaviFake: I'd call this a WP:SPLIT proposal rather than a merge, given that both article will remain afterwards; you may wish to rework the templates, as the actions required should this have support are best described at WP:PROPERSPLIT. Klbrain (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically this would be a WP:SECTIONMOVE proposal, but that process's backlog goes back to January 2021 so I opted for a merge tag to attract more attention... which clearly hasn't worked. I'll probably switch to using the section move templates in the future if nobody responds. But since you're here, do you agree with the... whatever it is I am proposing? FaviFake (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Finite lattice representation problem ⟶ Congruence lattice problem (Discuss)

I believe this article has major overlaps with Congruence lattice problem.

Maybe one should consider merging the two articles together. Saroad (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This problem is distinct from the congruence lattice problem. That problem is solved; this problem is still open and deserves its own page. ~2026-31632-48 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having two separate pages keeps the problems separate and makes it less likely they will be mistakenly conflated. ~2026-31632-48 (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Khao kaeng ⟶ Economy rice (Discuss)

I think that the article Khao kaeng, the Thai variation of Economy rice, could very well be merged into this article as it's basically the same thing. 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 09:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think directly merging would be appropriate, as the terms are culturally specific and doing so would likely confuse readers. If merging is desired, the target should be at a commonly understood descriptive title that covers all countries; I don't know if such a term exists. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I second this, a direct merge would not be appropriate as it would add unnecessary complexity to the article, as it already focuses on how Economy Rice was a result of inersection of Chinese and Malay/Indonesian culture. Merging the articles would dilute the definition and history of both Economy rice and Khao Kaeng. Keeping it as its own separate article linked in the "Similar cultures" section already fulfills the purpose of showing cultural overlap. Is there any way to close the task on WikiProject Thailand? I'm not very experienced yet, sorry. ChaYenYenYen Sahur (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Darnley Island (Queensland) ⟶ Erub Island, Queensland (Discuss)

We currently have two articles for the same island/locality/town, Erub Island, Queensland and Darnley Island (Queensland). The locality is officially known by the Indigenous name Erub Island, the other using the English name Darnley Island. According to the Queensland Place names database, the locality is officially Erub Island, the town and island are both officially Darnley Island (but Eurb is listed as an alternative name). I propose that these articles are merged into a single article using this article as the place where they will be combined (giving the article title as Erub Island (but of course explaining how Darnley Island is the name of the island and the town). Most of the content will be coming from the more developed Darnley Island. Given the size of this locality/island/town is very small, I don't think there's any benefit to having separate articles, just one article that tells the whole story. Your thoughts? Kerry (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the idea of merging, but Darnley seems to be the better target, both because it remains the official name (for town and island) and the one in most common use, still. Klbrain (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually simply "Erub" seems to be the winner (I assume Indigenous people may not use the word "island")
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Darnley+Island%2C+Erub+Island%2C+Erub&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3
but I am not convinced that this is the best way to determine name use of an Indigenous place Kerry (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Erub is an alternative transliteration for eruv (see wikt:erub), which seems a more likely meaning internationally, and will no doubt be affecting your ngram search; I note that you didn't include Darnley in your search :) . Still, recent census entries use Erub, so that's a good indication of the direction of travel. So, I'd keep 'Island' in the title, if only as a natural disambiguator. Klbrain (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Washington Party ⟶ Timothy C. Evans (Discuss)

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

Fusarium solani species complex ⟷ Neocosmospora (Discuss)

Proposed merge of Neocosmospora with Fusarium solani species complex The "Neocosmospora" concept of Lombart et al. (2015) is equivalent to the FSSC in scope, as is its implementation in MycoBank. These two therefore belong on the same page. I cannot come up with a reasonable merge target that pleases everyone, however. Artoria2e5 🌉 05:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Private server ⟶ Game server (Discuss)

It would make sense to merge Private server to Game server. The former article is very brief, and the information it contains is mostly covered in this article. P.landry1 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Heavenly Bodies (1960s tag team) ⟷ Heavenly Bodies (1990s tag team) (Discuss)

This article refers several tag teams that use the name Heavenly Bodies with the exception of the original and I don't see what makes that one any less unrelated than the post-Prichard incarnations. Charles Essie (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thought was "Of course not"...until I saw the 1990s article, which seems to take on too much (and spans 1985-2016, so the name doesn't fit). I think the 1960s (Greene/Greene) and the Prichard/Del Ray version might have enough for stand-alone articles, but maybe this topic would be best covered by something in the style of the Blond Bombers article, with these two included but only in summary form with links to stand-alone articles? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Both articles are fairly small and the one for the original team has only one source. Do they really have enough notability (by Wikipedia standards, not wrestling standards) for separate articles? Charles Essie (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not for the 1960s one. I think the Prichard/Del Ray pairing could be expanded with more coverage of their WWF run, though. They were around the same time as Well Dunn and higher on the card, with matches on multiple pay-per-views. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound like enough to me to warrant a separate article. That pairing only lasted two years and it wasn't removed enough from the Prichard/Lane team to qualify as a separate tag team. Charles Essie (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we disagree on that. If a Good Article can be written about a team from the same era who had a similar tenure and accomplished far less, there's definitely potential for a stand-alone article about a team that got a significant push (a run of pay-per-view appearances in WWF, a run in ECW, tag team championships in SMW and USWA, and ranked in the top 100 tag teams of the PWI Era). Anyhow, it doesn't seem to be the focus of this discussion. Yes, a merger might be warranted. As I mentioned with the Blond Bombers, it might have a summary of the Prichard/Del Ray pairing, but that wouldn't preclude a stand-alone article about them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but in the meantime, I say we go ahead with the merger. The section about the Prichard/Del Ray team currently relies entirely on single source so there's no sense in splitting it yet. By the way, my point still stands that they're not a separate team from the Prichard/Lane pairing. So if there's going to be a separate article, it can't be limited to the Prichard/Del Ray pairing. Charles Essie (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would be like merging two different movies with the same name. It doesn't make sense ~2026-27476-30 (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's what this article already is! As are similar ones for the Blond Bombers and Hollywood Blonds. Wrestling stables are not like movies, especially when the independent notability for any of the incarnations has hot been established. Charles Essie (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GaryColemanFan: So what do you think? Should we go ahead with the merge? Charles Essie (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

History of China–India relations ⟷ Relationship of the Cholas with the Chinese (Discuss)

{{Merge|History of China–India relations | date = March 2026 }}

ScrubbedSoap (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ScrubbedSoap: Could you add a reason for the merge here? (see WP:MERGEPROP) Also note that merge templates go on the article page (I've added it), and should be tagged on both of the involved pages (I've added it on the other one too). Klbrain (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HP Slate 7, HP Slate 21 and HP Slate 500 ⟶ HP Slate (Discuss)

Why has three sepereate pages (HP Slate 7, HP Slate 500, HP Slate 21) where you can merge those sub-pages to their main page? DangLeBaThinh (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish federation ⟶ Jewish Federations of North America (Discuss)

I propose merging Jewish federation into this article or vice versa, as the two articles generally discuss the same topic from different perspectives. I believe that the national group overseeing Jewish federations can be more simply discussed in the same article as that describing its member federations. 42-BRT (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is page is inaccurate as JFED is not an acronym used by Jewish Federations of North America, nor is it an existing organization. There are 141 local Federations across North America that fall under thew JFNA umbrella. Unclejoesboat (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of Johnson solids ⟶ Johnson solid (Discuss)

Propose to merge List of Johnson solids to here. While I am proposing for Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Johnson solids/archive1, I also suggest merging, per the last two talks above from here. By merging, tables may have a small adjustment, by removing the data of their surface area and volume, and replacing them with nets. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, of course, that we have a lot of duplication at this point.
I'm tending towards the following solution:
  • Main article: prune the tables, leave only the big image. The previous version had some text below the list talking a bit about the families and their construction, maybe we add something like that back in to accompany the image.
  • List: leave it alone, it has a lot of extra data which I do consider valuable, like volume and area, but which would clutter up the main article.
  • Nav boxes: Gone from both.
Introscopia (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per above. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
well, whatever the decision ends up being, I went ahead and removed the navboxes. I think we all agree those were unnecessary. Introscopia (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Introscopia. Then adding some vertex configurations and categorize whether each solid is composite or elementary? Some just asked for adding a 3-connected planar graph, but this is too much. Equally, all articles must have such a description. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, friend, once again I can't really tell what you mean.
And while I'm here: I'm going to revert the edits to that info box with the three shapes, ok? I feel you reduced the clarity and readability, with no obvious upside. Introscopia (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Introscopia. I think applying directly is much more understandable than saying here. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Naʼvi language ⟷ Naʼvi grammar ⟶ Naʼvi grammar and language (Discuss)

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

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

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

No need for a new article name. If it's merged, it should just be merged into this article. — kwami (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kwamikagami in keeping the current article name, for consistency. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article is what remained after moving the bulk of the text to Wikibooks. If someone started a new grammar article, I'm not sure that it would be notable enough to keep, per the earlier consensus to remove such details. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge with Naʼvi language as the target article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Opill ⟶ Norgestrel (Discuss)

So.... No other birth control as far as I know has an article seperate from active ingredient. Idk why Opill should be different

Before you cry that its a notable brand, welp Plan B doesn't have a standalone article and I'd say plan B is notable


soooo. can we merge :) Spravato (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Opill is a branded norgestrel product, and a standalone article risks unnecessary content fork and duplication. Merging into Norgestrel would improve coherence, with brand-specific details retained in a dedicated section, consistent with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:CONTENTFORK. —Lojmze (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – There are other brand names of OTC drugs that have their own article such as Advil, Tylenol, and Benadryl. But I am very sympathetic to the point that Opill may not meet notability guidelines. There are other less known drugs, such as Excedrin, that have their own article, however. If a merge does happen, most content should be removed. Some information could be retained in the History or Society and culture section. Slothwizard (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Packard Bell ⟷ Packard Bell Corporation (Discuss)

I would like to propose merging Packard Bell Corporation into Packard Bell, since, according to what Packard Bell itself has stated, it is still the same company founded in 1926. Paranoid25 (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to me that the company's promotional material is more reliable than the history of the two companies documented by the existing sources in the articles, which clearly state otherwise. Elestrophe (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to me that there are any sources on the page that clearly indicate that Packard Bell Corporation is different from Packard Bell, but maybe I'm wrong and you can point them out to me. Paranoid25 (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See my source linked below. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Packard Bell active from 1926–1968 and the current Packard Bell brand have nothing to do with each other beyond the name, according to the reliable sources cited in Packard Bell. They have no DNA in common. By Alagem's own admission, he bought out the trademark because it still had brand recognition among Silent Generation people in the mid-1980s who remember their old radios. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both companies have their independent coverage, and should remain separate. ~2026-20962-73 (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The trademark history seems to show different corporate owners WhaleFarm (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Paignton ⟶ Paignton (Discuss)

I propose merging List of people from Paignton into Paignton. List of people from Paignton is currently unsourced and it is not clear that it meets WP:NLIST. Mariamnei (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: As I said at User_talk:Ianmacm#Paignton, this is largely a list of people born in Paignton but do not have strong links to the town, creating problems with WP:TRIVIA. It is also largely unsourced, for example Lauren Cuthbertson doesn't even say that she was born in Paignton, let alone source it. This type of list should be properly sourced before adding it. ArbieP seems to enjoy adding this type of random list to articles, but without bothering to provide sources that meet WP:V. I would remove it from this article if it was simply a heap of unsourced material.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:43, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I've now added (14) refs for the list. I hope you can both now accept the list (back) in the main article. ArbieP (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to go through all of this yet, but the Sara Craven source does not mention Paignton at all. Likewise, the Lauren Cuthbertson source does not mention Paignton by name. Also, there are still concerns about WP:NLIST notability, because the sourcing (such as it is), does not discuss why the people are notably linked to Paignton. As NLIST says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.", eg List of Nobel laureates easily satisfies this guideline. It is ok to have this type of material in a Category if it is reliably sourced, but Wikipedia articles are written in prose and do not include randomly compiled lists just for the sake of it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a look at the sourcing for this list:

It is lazy to compile this type of list without making any effort to source it first. Just because another Wikipedia article says "X was born in Paignton" without sourcing it does not make it true.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional universe of Avatar ⟶ Pandora (Avatar) (Discuss)

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

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

  • Note: Pandora (Avatar) is not yet fully complete. I have several sections I am still working on in userspace, such as for reception (in much greater detail than what is currently present in this article).
11WB (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I support merging (or just redirecting) Fictional universe of Avatar, which I agree has too much in-universe content, to Pandora (Avatar), which is more appropriately fleshed out per WP:WAF. This article can be linked to on Pandora's talk page, if anything needs revisiting. The Pandora article looks good, and I look forward to seeing more details added. Having written up RDA (Avatar), I find it very likely that these books have other chapters more focused on Pandora. I recommend using WP:LIBRARY if you haven't already to try to get articles (or even book chapters) that way. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this! Do you think a WP:HISTMERGE is necessary here? 11WB (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it is. While there is some scoe overlap, there is not much content overlap, and what content is here is not worth keeping within the page history of Pandora (Avatar). It is good enough to just link to it to on the talk page after a merge/redirect. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Forget to mention this, but you may wish to bold your support for the benefit of the closer. 11WB (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Massless particle ⟶ Particle (Discuss)

Merge proposal for Massless particle

To quote Headbomb, I think Massless particle should be merged here. It was already proposed for merging in § Proposed merge of Massive particle into Particle but wasn't properly discussed. To me it seems a small subtopic of particle that relies heavily the context in this page. FaviFake (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively and link to the more specialist topics on their own pages. I think the updated article is looking good thanks in no small part to Johnjbarton, merging massless particle to a sub section under particle physics/mass makes sense to me as a way to provide a good introduction and links to more in-depth articles. Support for editorial reasons (kind of PAGEDECIDE) ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that massless particle will unbalance this article. To succeed as a broad topic, the various summaries need to similar in size and scope. Particle#Mass should be a short summary. As far as I know, massive/massless particles only come up in the context of relativity. Yes, mass or no mass is discussed for all kinds of particle physics models but the specific distinction arose in relativity AFAIK. Other candidates: Mass in special relativity, Invariant mass, Mass, Particle physics. I lean towards "particle physics" because it has other classification discussion. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would you support a merger to Particle physics? I've added the tag to it. FaviFake (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge into particle physics. I do not see the reason why we can not merge massless particle into particle physics, since they are related to each other. Particle physics is missing this information so I support the merge. Floating Orb Talk! my edits 04:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a general overview of the basic properties of particles broadly speaking. Stuff about Weyl fermions and quasiparticles do not belong here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See my reasons outlined in the massive particle discussion. OpenScience709 (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose massless particles are interesting enough to have it's own article. The particle physics page is an overview of particle physics itself, and it's alright to include information about massless particles in there without directly merging the entire article to particle physics. Instead, we should just write a section about massless particles in the particle physics page whilst leaving a more detailed encyclopedic page for in-depth reading and research. Riverskysun (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Massless particle ⟶ Particle physics (Discuss)

Merge proposal for Massless particle

To quote Headbomb, I think Massless particle should be merged here. It was already proposed for merging in § Proposed merge of Massive particle into Particle but wasn't properly discussed. To me it seems a small subtopic of particle that relies heavily the context in this page. FaviFake (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively and link to the more specialist topics on their own pages. I think the updated article is looking good thanks in no small part to Johnjbarton, merging massless particle to a sub section under particle physics/mass makes sense to me as a way to provide a good introduction and links to more in-depth articles. Support for editorial reasons (kind of PAGEDECIDE) ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that massless particle will unbalance this article. To succeed as a broad topic, the various summaries need to similar in size and scope. Particle#Mass should be a short summary. As far as I know, massive/massless particles only come up in the context of relativity. Yes, mass or no mass is discussed for all kinds of particle physics models but the specific distinction arose in relativity AFAIK. Other candidates: Mass in special relativity, Invariant mass, Mass, Particle physics. I lean towards "particle physics" because it has other classification discussion. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would you support a merger to Particle physics? I've added the tag to it. FaviFake (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge into particle physics. I do not see the reason why we can not merge massless particle into particle physics, since they are related to each other. Particle physics is missing this information so I support the merge. Floating Orb Talk! my edits 04:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a general overview of the basic properties of particles broadly speaking. Stuff about Weyl fermions and quasiparticles do not belong here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See my reasons outlined in the massive particle discussion. OpenScience709 (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose massless particles are interesting enough to have it's own article. The particle physics page is an overview of particle physics itself, and it's alright to include information about massless particles in there without directly merging the entire article to particle physics. Instead, we should just write a section about massless particles in the particle physics page whilst leaving a more detailed encyclopedic page for in-depth reading and research. Riverskysun (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KK Partizan in Europe and KK Partizan in EuroLeague ⟶ KK Partizan in international competitions (Discuss)

I propose merging KK Partizan in Europe and KK Partizan in EuroLeague into KK Partizan in international competitions. Similar articles about other former Yugoslav clubs already use the “in international competitions” title, such as KK Split in international competitions and KK Crvena zvezda in international competitions. Using the same format here would make the naming more consistent. Also, since the EuroLeague is part of European/international competitions, having a separate article for it seems unnecessary and leads to overlap between the pages. Zdremon (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PE ⟶ Pe (Discuss)

I propose merging the content of PE into Pe. I don't see much of a reason for these two DAB pages to be split. GilaMonster536 (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They're both pretty long. If we merge them, they'll be an even longer list. The idea of WP:D is to make navigation more efficient, and it's hard to see how lengthening lists would do that.
I think it would more sense if we just removed the acronyms from the "Pe" list, and added a hatnote for "PE" as well as the existing see also entry. That way, anyone who looks up "pe" (which Mediawiki does not distinguish from "Pe") could more quickly get to the all-uppercase version as well, and read a shorter list when there. --Joy (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all the "PE" entries on Pe. Readers wanting an article titled "Pe" would have to read an inconveniently long list with only a few topics titled "Pe", so I oppose the merge. Sign2 (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think that Pe should be merged into PE, considering that the latter is much longer. GilaMonster536 (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about my oppose now, I think this is the only two-letter acronym that has seperate DABs. Sign2 (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay there's also Wu and WU Sign2 (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Using some code I've found the full list of two-letter combinations with separate disambiguation pages:
  1. AK and Ak
  2. JY and Jy
  3. PE and Pe
  4. WU and Wu
  5. XI and Xi
Jy definitely should be redirected to JY. XI is short enough to be merged into Xi. WU, Pe, and Ak are all long enough that I'm not sure about merging them. but not completely opposed to it either. Sign2 (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty arbitrary - we don't actually know at what point the length becomes an issue for readers.
I previously checked something similar with three-letter combinations, cf. Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 56#WP:DABCOMBINE not actually with organic consensus in the acronym space. --Joy (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pantomath ⟶ Philomath (Discuss)

In the last discussion about trying to delete Pantomath 20 years ago, some editors wanted to merge. That article's talk page also has an informal proposal from 2 years ago. I think it's worth trying formally - because "Pantomath" seems like a sort of resurrected ancient Greek term that certain writers have been trying to wedge in as a neologism. (Very opinionated: they're trying to sound smart OR they think "lover of knowledge" doesn't accurately describe the subject's want/desire of knowledge strongly enough.) Slightly less opinionated: It has extremely light use in the English language and I don't think we should have articles about every made-up/zombie word/calque that makes it into a publication.

I propose merging Pantomath into Philomath. I think the content in Pantomath can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. 🔥Komonzia (message) 17:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Komonzia, Support per nom. — Reywas92Talk 17:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lindgren oxidation ⟶ Pinnick oxidation (Discuss)

Proposed merge of Lindgren oxidation into Pinnick oxidation

From my (potentially flawed) understanding, these two oxidation methods are functionally similar with insufficient individual coverage, and thus should be merged. This paper (as well as the Lindgren oxidation article) states that Lindgren originally came up with the reaction, which was then further developed by Kraus & Pinnick. While both names are used ("Lindgren oxidation", "Pinnick oxidation"), several pieces in the literature refer to the reaction with sodium chlorite in acid and some scavenger reagent as the "Lindgren-Kraus-Pinnick oxidation" (1, 2, 3) or "Pinnick-Lindgren-Kraus oxidation" (4, 5, 6, 7). Footnote 18 in this paper states that the Lindgren oxidation "is also known in the literature as the Pinnick oxidation" further suggests that the two names refer to the same reaction.

As the Pinnick oxidation article is more extensive, I suggest the Lindgren oxidation article be merged into the Pinnick oxidation article, with redirects set up for any appropriate alternate names. Staraction (talk · contribs) 07:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They do appear to share a root. My read is that Lindgren developed the general method first, while Pinnick refined it as a tool for the selective oxidation α,β-unsaturated aldehydes (doi:10.1098/rsos.191568). Pinnick–Lindgren oxidation, with the usual single-name redirects, might be an acceptable option. Project Osprey (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Project Osprey. It does seem like "Pinnick-Lindgren oxidation" is used as a name for the reaction in some of the literature, as well (1, 2, 3, 4). Would it be possible to merge & rename at the same time? Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 09:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pleurotomariacea ⟶ Pleurotomarioidea (Discuss)

Cognitive warfare ⟶ Psychological warfare (Discuss)

Merger with Psychological warfare

I struggle to see the difference between these, and to the extent there is a difference, it seems this article could be a section of the other article rather than a separate one, as it is now, because they cover very similar concepts, with a lot of overlapping information. Yet, for how similar the two articles are, there is very little cross-linking between them. Blippy1998 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

searching cw in open-and-closed inverted commas on google scholar yields 3000+ results.
Does the superiority of merging into a section to leaving as two separate articles hinge on the absence of defined, distinctive use of the term "CW"?
eg https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/11/14/assessing-cognitive-warfare/ "For du Cluzel, psychological warfare attempts to change what the target audience thinks,
but Cognitive Warfare aims at shaping how they reason and their resultant behavior."
eg https://www.jstor.org/stable/48873423 "Psychological warfare focuses on the perceptions, thoughts, and feelings of human agents
… Cognitive warfare is a concept that has evolved a step beyond psychological warfare, …"
Eg the study, 'A Comparative Study on the Development of the CCP's "Psychological Warfare" and "Cognitive Domain Warfare."', in the wikipedia article.
Even if there's overlapping information, they needn't be merged: CW and PW are not equivalent. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overlaps can be removed without merger FatalSubjectivities (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Sufi Studies ⟶ Qadri Shattari (Discuss)

There's a new page at Institute of Sufi Studies, but it largely duplicates the text on the topic that's already here. Also Qadri Shattari isn't WP:TOOLONG, so there's no need for WP:SUMMARY format. So, I suggest a merge for reasons of overlap, short text and context. Klbrain (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Strong Oppose: We do keep academic stubs per WP:stub policy. Passes WP:NJournal. Qadri Shattari already has almost 2500+ words so pretty nonsensical argument for WP:Too long. Also per WP:CFORK. I think the nominator's reasoning is vague. Sumiono (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that splitting is usually considered at 8000 (per the policy you quote), while Qadri Shattari currently has only 1261 prose words, even including the duplicated text of Institute of Sufi Studies. Please do let me know the ways in which 'overlap, short text and context' is unclear. Klbrain (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Klbrain I am not sure which tool you are using for your word count? Per the available and usually used independent word counter tools like, https://wordcounter.net/website-word-count and https://www.seoptimer.com/website-word-count/ the word count is coming to be 2500+, I acknowledge the possibility of those tools to add some sorrounding words in their measurements, but I am pretty sure that it will not be half atleast, as you claim. There is no hard and fast rule to have every article to be 8000+ words, we do have featured articles of even around 1200 words. My argument still stands as the existing Qadri Shattari is very long and already contains too many subsections even with sub heading level 3. So I am not sure about your obsession of recklessly redirecting notable articles without doing proper WP:Before?
Addressing your overlap, short text and context; your argument is nonsensical coz the institute article is a modern research initiative of the ancient 15th century order, whereas Qadri Shattari is itself a Sufi order so it fails the criteria # 1 for merging as both are two different things but not duplicate. It also fails the criteria #2&3 coz the institute article is not very short with just one or two sentences as mentioned explicitly by the criteria #3. We have enough content to the Institute article to have a valid stub ofcourse with the possibility of future expansion. Similarly if you go by #4, practically we do keep academic stubs per WP:NJOURNAL, and ISS clearly passes this based on its real world impact as its research project has been adopted by the well established international university as the part of their textbook/examination curriculum showing that thousands of multi-national students of that particular international university is reading the research project of ISS as a part of routine academic their syllabus. And per NCITE we do keep stubs on publications if Chairs of University like University of Wales and Professors of University of Pennsylvania and Osmania University are citing their research projects in their research. I will suggest you to slow down and try to learn the ropes of NPP before being too bold to get your NPP permission revoked. Thanks. Sumiono (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please see User_talk:Klbrain#Bold_Redirects?_Slow_down_! Sumiono (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, 1261 word count; merging does not require a lack of notability, and to merge is not to delete, so WP:BEFORE is not relevant. Klbrain (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why only prose? While merging we look to the entire complexity of the article like multiple subheadings and other complex issues. I think your arguments do not fit in any of the 5 criterias mentioned there. And yes before is very much fits and relevant here because you are using backdoor deletion by blowing away the established articles just by redirecting without any formal merge. Sumiono (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A merge is not a deletion; 'by prose' is the policy (which is hence why the prosesize tool exists). Klbrain (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Maximoff ⟶ Quicksilver (Marvel Comics) (Discuss)

The Peter Maximoff article should be merged into Quicksilver (Marvel Comics) for the following reasons:

The article is explicitly derivative and non-independent. Peter Maximoff is openly described within the article itself as being "based on the Marvel Comics character Quicksilver." Adaptation-based articles are only justifiable when they contain enough unique, substantial material to stand independently; this one does not.

The character's story is permanently closed. Unlike MCU counterpart characters such as Sam Wilson, James Rhodes, or Hope van Dyne, who have received their own articles on the strength of extensive solo storylines, significant ongoing character development, and confirmed future appearances, Peter Maximoff's entire existence as a character is confined to three films and a single cameo across 2014–2019. Following Disney's acquisition of 21st Century Fox, the Fox X-Men film continuity is definitively concluded. No new Peter Maximoff content will ever be produced, making a permanent standalone article increasingly difficult to justify.

The article is too small to stand alone. Its content covers a handful of film appearances and some VFX production notes. Every meaningful detail it contains could be absorbed into the existing Fox Films subsection of the main Quicksilver article without the loss of a single piece of information. The result would not be a bloated main article, it would simply be a more complete and higher-quality one.

Consistency with how the MCU version is handled. The MCU's Pietro Maximoff does not have his own standalone article and is instead covered within the main Quicksilver article. There is no principled reason to treat the Fox version differently, particularly given that the MCU version had a theatrically released death in a major Avengers film, making Peter Maximoff's case for a standalone article comparatively even weaker.

The split should arguably never have happened. The original decision to create a separate article was likely reflexive; live-action adaptations are routinely given their own pages but in this case the character never accumulated enough material to justify the split. Merging now corrects that ModlordD (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ModlordD:, it is the common practice to allow at least a several weeks for responses to be provided to proposals such as these before acting on them. BD2412 T 15:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't know. I had acted upon it apon approval from another more experienced editor ModlordD (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would also question some of the bases of argument above; for example whether the character's story really is "permanently closed", given the nature of comic book movies, and the recent surprise resuscitations of numerous dead-and/or-gone characters (Wolverine, Professor X, Blade, the previous versions of Spider-Man, etc.). BD2412 T 02:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For posterity I'll mention that mergers don't actually require proposals at all unless there's reason to believe it may be controversial. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the article has existed for over five years and represents the substantive contributions of two dozen editors should suffice to believe that a merge may be controversial. BD2412 T 13:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge as all of the pertinent information can be covered in one place. Note that I endorsed the merge in a discussion on my talk page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. If all of the pertinent information can be covered in one place, then the merger would have added 27k to this article, which is not what has happened here, despite the comic book background of the character only constituting a few lines of the breakout article. Aspects of the character article such as casting of the actor, special effects, and nominations for acting awards, are generally beyond the scope of coverage of the comic book character alone. BD2412 T 20:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pertinent" excludes fancruft. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The items I noted are supported by reliable independent sources. Processes for casting actors for such parts or for rendering special effects for particular sets of unusual conditions (in this case, an individual moving at impossible speeds) are of a more general interest than just a fandom. This is what makes such details, by definition, not fancruft, or else we wouldn't have articles on casting and special effects at all. BD2412 T 23:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support The actual info in the split is very minimal and easily condensed into the parent article, where it makes more sense to cover him rather than as a separate split. Splits per version should only be in cases where the coverage warrants such a split (For example, Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and Iron Man are both so iconic with enough coverage that merging them would be unwise). This is not the case here, since the split's info is very limited and easily mergeable with bloating the parent (And in fact most of the merging has already been done). We shouldn't split variants "just because", we should only split when it warrants it, which is clearly not the case here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: What do you mean by "condensed"? What would you remove to effect this? BD2412 T 20:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the way it's currently organized at Quicksilver (Marvel Comics)#In other media is how I'd do it, honestly. Retains all the core information pretty well and gives readers a good summary of the character if they're unfamiliar with them. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that would not be the worst thing. If merged, I would expect the split article to spring back into being if the character shows up again in the Doomsday arc, as that would be a rather huge development. BD2412 T 21:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge It seems that the format for Pietro Maximoff (a hatnote and redirect) seems perfectly reasonable for Peter Maximoff. There is more to the Peter character than to the Pietro character, so fair that it merits its own page. MCU Pietro was in one movie really, where he was the 6th or 7th biggest component, whereas the Peter character is said to have really added to the two main movies he was in and has been covered proportionally more
I would endorse a clearer disambiguator for Peter (Peter Maximoff (X-men film character)?) as it is a little confusing to have effectively the same character split into Pietro Maximoff vs Peter Maximoff. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to merge. To be frank, I am indifferent to the discussion of Peter having his own article or not. However, even if it is decided that Peter is not notable enough, the contents of his page should most definitely not be merged into Quicksilver's article. The information could instead be added to the List of X-Men film series characters page.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Kishan filmography ⟶ Ravi Kishan (Discuss)

Proposed merge of Ravi Kishan filmography into Ravi Kishan

The existing Ravi Kishan article is not so long that this information can't be added there. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since his filmography is too long and have many languages. It's better to be with seperate pages. MarSteGeo (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. You split the article without first reaching a consensus, which is a step that should be taken, especially by newer editors. WP:HASTE
Things that should be taken into consideration are found in WP:AS. Prior to splitting, the article was not what would normally be considered too large. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:CE design category ⟶ Recreational Craft Directive (Discuss)

Recently created CE design category appears to be redundant with this page. Merge content here. Gjs238 (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sirvikalender ⟶ Runic calendar (Discuss)

Proposed merge of Sirvikalender into Runic calendar

"sirvikalender" should be mentioned and redirected to main article Estopedist1 (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Estopedist1. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and for the time you have spent reviewing this article. Your perspective and extensive experience is appreciated!
I was wondering if you might suggest some benefits you feel a redirect might offer that would outweigh maintaining this as a standalone entry? I am concerned that a redirect might result in a loss of nuance as the Estonian versions are quite distinct.
The article Sirvikalender has received a favourable peer review, and I am committed to continue to work on the article to try to raise it to GA status. Your advice on any areas where you feel the article could be refined to better support its status if it were to stand as a specialised entry would be very helpful. Mustleib (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mustleib: I don't know the topic in deep, but currently both articles are not long. Etwiki even haven't standalone article for et:ruunikalender. And I am not sure that every minor nuance of Estonian sirvikalender should be added to enwiki article Estopedist1 (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply @Estopedist1. I agree with you that including this level of detail about the types of sirvikalender might not fit the parent Runic calendar page, which is why I suggested a separate entry. I am happy to update and expand the parent and child article alongside other notable examples like the primstav and clog calendars. I suggest that using child articles for details on specific calendars might be a more effective way to maintain a neutral point of view in the main entry while still allowing for the specific cultural nuances important to regional traditions and folklore. Currently the explanation of runes on the parent page is not true for some runic calendars. As the sirvikalender page has already been reviewed and granted a B-class rating, I hope it can stand as a specialised entry rather than being condensed. I actually joined Wikipedia through the Women in Red project and first encountered some of the references on sirvikalender while researching a biography on Estonian woman, Kongla Ann, so I am quite keen to see these specific cultural histories preserved. I would appreciate the chance to work on these further, though I respect your judgement on the best path forward. Mustleib (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mustleib: could you solve the mess at etwiki, see et:Arutelu:Sirvikalender? Currently several Estonian dictionaries says that we are dealing with synonyms (see https://sonaveeb.ee/search/unif/dlall/dsall/ruunikalender/1/est). If concepts in etwiki are clear, I would be more inclined for two standalone articles in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Estopedist1 apologies for my slow reply here. I took a look at et-wiki and you are right, there are a number of different pages there. Since I am a newer user, I am happy to help out, but defer to you on what might be the best path forward there as well. Mustleib (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mustleib: I checked "Eesti rahvakultuuri leksikon" (2007). It says "Eesti ruunikalender oli enamasti kantud väikestele kimpu seotud lauakestele (sirvikalender)". So, fron now on, I am quite sure that "runic calendar" should be primary topic and sirvikalender to be redirected there Estopedist1 (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, @Estopedist1! Thanks for checking. Mustleib (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semiotics of fashion ⟶ Semiotics of dress (Discuss)

Merge proposal with Semiotics of dress

I propose that this article be merged with Semiotics of dress, as a WP:REDUNDANTFORK; the statement pre-empting this proposal in "Semiotics of dress"' lede, Clothing and fashion are not the same. While clothing is defined as "any covering of the human body",[2] fashion is defined as the style of dress accepted by members of a society as being appropriate for specific times and occasions.[2], is just blatant recognition of a WP:POVFORK to boot. This distinction could be mentioned in a merged article, but it does not justify the fork. chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thse certainly seem like the same general topic. — Reywas92Talk 17:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this (as a design researcher, albeit not working on fashion). Semiotics of dress does not seem used. This book uses fashion semiotics https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-032-02540-1. It also seems that semiotics of clothing is used quite commonly, alongside or instead of semiotics of fashion: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110874099.605/html E mln e (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The scope and sources substantially overlap, and maintaining separate articles risks redundant coverage and conceptual fragmentation. Any nuanced distinction between “dress” and “fashion” can be addressed within a unified article structure, consistent with WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. —Lojmze (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semystra (nymph) ⟶ Semystra (Discuss)

This article was created under the title of Semystra (nymph), as an article separate from Semystra, which was meant to be about the location of her sanctuary on the Golden Horn, created in the mistaken belief that that location was a notable "town" or "city". From all the sources I've seen, it wasn't – Dionysius, the main primary source, only speaks of an altar located there, and that through the altar the nymph had given her name "to the place". There's nothing in the text that points to the existence of a city.

I intend to merge the two articles, which mostly share the same content anyway. Since the "nymph" article is factually the primary one, this will involve some moving around. The "nymph" article needs to move to plain Semystra, while the old placename article must be moved away from there to make place, e.g. to Semystra (location), but then that should be merged-and-redirected back to the plain title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't going to be a separate article about the place, wouldn't it be simpler just to copy the text from here to the undisambiguated title, combine anything that's redundant, and make this a redirect? There's no need to use the move tool at all; just indicate in the edit summaries for each article that you're merging them. That will preserve the article histories and ensure proper attribution of the contents. P Aculeius (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I was thinking of keeping the edit history of the better-developed article together, but maybe you're right; it's not that much history anyway, and the main contributors are the same for both articles anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dixmier trace ⟶ Singular trace (Discuss)

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

Slovak Republic (1939–1945) ⟷ Slovakia during World War II (Discuss)

Shouldn't this be merged with Slovak Republic (1939–1945), since the both cover the same thing? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these articles should be merged because they cover the exact same historical entity and time period. Having two separate pages creates unnecessary redundancy and splits valuable information across different locations. The "Slovak Republic (1939–1945)" article is the more appropriate primary title as it identifies the specific political state that existed during the war. Dasomm (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merge to Slovak Republic (1939–1945). ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it'd be redundant to have 2 pages that cover the same thing although you'd have to trim it down a bit if the article size is too big. KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the Slovak Republic predate WW2 by six months, though? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yes, mainly because the Slovak Republic was made close to WW2, plus a prelude could fix the issue. KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

R-U-Dead-Yet ⟶ Slowloris (cyber attack) (Discuss)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-U-Dead-Yet is essentially the same kind of attack, only it uses a POST-form; I think we can count Slowloris as the general term for the class of attacks and mention R-U-Dead-Yet in this article. ~2026-18963-56 (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't R-U-Dead-Yet a different and distinct tool? Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
POST is not an actual distinction as slowloris.pl also uses POST if running in "HTTP Ready" mode. See the source code in https://web.archive.org/web/20150429015628/http://ha.ckers.org/slowloris/slowloris.pl. If there is no other distinction I am in favor of merging. --Artoria2e5 🌉 07:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary sociology and biosociology ⟶ Sociocultural evolution (Discuss)

There's a new article on Evolutionary sociology and biosociology, another synonym that overlaps so heavily with this page that here is it best merged here. Klbrain (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spinosaurus mirabilis ⟶ Spinosaurus (Discuss)

In light of the newly named species and considering the current length of the article (more than 13,000 words), I propose to split off the "Discovery and naming" section of the Spinosaurus article to the new article "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus". As previously discussed in WT:PALEO for the Taxonomy of Allosaurus last year, articles with over 8,000-9,000 words can be divided according to Wikipedia:Article size, and the "Discovery and naming" section and its subsections contain more than 6,000 words in total (close to half of the entire article), so I believe it does warrant a split off.

If anyone agrees with this proposal, are there any opinions for how the new article will be structured and how the current section should be trimmed? I especially want to ask Augustios Paleo who recently worked most on this section, as I'm not entirely knowledgeable on the "Discovery and naming" section's content. In case there is a disagreement, are there any alternatives that could be suggested? Thank you. Junsik1223 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if the new article "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus" were to be created, it can expand probably more on Spinosaurus maroccanus and other indeterminate materials in proper paragraphs rather than bullet points. Some sections of the Sigilmassasaurus article can be incorporated to that new article as well; I'm not entirely sure if the "consensus" is that both Sigilmassasaurus and Spinosaurus are synonymous, so I'm not suggesting a merge. I also think Spinosaurus mirabilis does not need to be merged, since that article will most likely be expanded further in the future, but I'd also like to see if there are any alternative ideas for that. Junsik1223 (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with this but I don't think it's good to say "it will be expanded in the future so it should stay in its own page" since that's something that can be said about any fossil species. I feel like the new species could be merged until that new information is actually published rather than relying on hypothetical papers. SeismicShrimp (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see, maybe I can take your stance as well until new information comes of this species. Also I think it would be fair to tag @SlvrHwk who created the article for Spinosaurus mirabilis. Junsik1223 (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree. We can merge the species articles into the Spinosaurus page and create a Taxonomy of Spinosaurus page. This would also tackle the existing problem of the bloated specimens section, which is too detailed for the average reader but could benefit from being in a Taxonomy article. AFH (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment(s): I certainly see the value in a "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus" page, but it should not be used as the primary home for content on S. mirabilis. (I also don't think a dedicated S. aegyptiacus page is necessary.) As it stands, and understandably so, the Spinosaurus (genus) page primarily covers the type species. I don't currently see a way to adequately discuss S. mirabilis in sufficient depth at the genus page without making it seem disjointed and overcrowded. A separate page to discuss the various aspects (discovery/geological/anatomical context) of the new species seems appropriate. There's definitely enough to say just about S. mirabilis to fill a reasonably-sized page, just based on the single new paper (incorporating paleoecology, environment, anatomy, etc...). And to be clear, I think Spinosaurus is a special exception, given its popularity and the sheer volume of published work on it. Most other "second species" (or third, fourth, etc.) of non-avian dinosaur genera can be sufficiently addressed on their genus page without special accommodations. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very arbitrary to have an article for one species when the genus has two. Also, there is so little info about this new species that it could easily be covered in a trimmed genus article and a taxonomy article. A species article would just duplicate info found there for no useful reason. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think an S. aegyptiacus article is essentially impossible due to how many disagreements there are about what even represents that species. The species level and genus level info are impossible to pull apart from one another. In regards to only giving one species a separate article, I don't think it's necessarily a bad format. I've proposed something similar in the past for Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis (though we'll see how necessary that seems after a Taxonomy article happens). When these famous genera get a second species, I think it's just hard to incorporate. There's so much written about the main species that any coequal focus on the new species feels like undue weight, and the minor species is just lost in all the info (V. osmolskae suffers from this too). So you can split off the new species to just avoid the problem entirely. The reason you don't then also split the famous species is that it would split the information people are looking for (that about the type species) between two articles. People typing in "Tyrannosaurus" really mean "T. rex" but we're putting them on a page that's giving a less detailed overview about both species. So I think no species articles is negotiable, and one for the less notable species is negotiable, but not splitting info on the "main topic" (S. aegyptiacus) between two articles in a way that would confuse lay readers. For what it's worth in this case I am negotiable to seeing someone show me that S. mirabilis would fit in a trimmed down article if we dump a lot of existing Spinosaurus info into a Taxonomy article... but until that work happens I think it needs to stay separate. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a problem that the more published on species has more weight in the genus article? Seems pretty normal. In any case, splitting the new species doesn't solve anything, as essentially all the same info would still need to be present in the genus article in summarised form. And when so little is published on the new species, it will be basically the same info in the genus article as in the species article. So again, little to gain, just more articles to update and keep track of. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a problem for the genus article itself per se, but if someone comes to it looking for information on S. mirabilis they're going to have a harder time than if it just has its own article they can navigate to. It's so lost in all the info on S. aegyptiacus that the reader is inconvenienced. If it were me I'd jsut ctrl+f it, but a less internet literate reader or app user may go away unable to effectively learn about S. mirabilis. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But again, most of the S. mirabilis info has to be at the genus article as well in any case. Splitting off an article doesn't mean all the info is removed from the parent article, only that it should be summarised shorter there. But with a species known from so little and with so little published on it, there is very little to cut down, and you will essentially just end up with two articles with the same info. And I don't buy that info is "lost" in an article, that's what tables of content are for, and that a sub-taxon with little published on it simply has less to say about it isn't unusual. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't have a strong opinion whether we should merge S. mirabilis to "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus" (given that the article is later created), in case the majority opinion favors the merge approach, I think one solution I can suggest is adapting the structure of the current Quetzalcoatlus article for the main article and the Taxonomy article (regarding multiple species coverage, to be specific). That article has relevant coverage of both species in various sections since early 2025, despite the second species Q. lawsoni having been named in December 2021.
While I do think more opinions are needed, at the very least all the current participants seem to agree that splitting part of the article regarding its taxonomy/species is warranted (with most agreeing that the Taxonomy article split has its value), though how that will be done seems to be where the disagreement occurs. Junsik1223 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This makes the most sense to me. The Quetzalcoatlus article meaningfully covers two species with vastly different morphs while maintaining a single article for the genus. A separate article regarding the taxonomy of Spinosaurus, to expound upon issues with potential synonymy with Oxalaia and Sigilmassasaurus or whether or not the material actually belongs to S. aegyptiacus in the first place, could have merit, but I don't think it should serve as the replacement for a dedicated S. mirabilis article. Apc12345 (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It will probably come as no surprise to anyone here that I am strongly in favor of keeping S. mirabilis as a separate article. As it currently stands, Spinosaurus has over 9,000 words of prose, making it long enough that it is recommended to trim or split the article per WP:SIZERULE, so it's clearly inappropriate to merge anything into the article in its current state. I would also be in favor of creating a separate article for S. aegyptiacus. LittleLazyLass does have a fair point that it might be difficult to disentangle S. aegyptiacus from the genus as a whole due to the dispute over what material properly belongs in the species, so I'm less committed to the idea of a S. aegyptiacus article being necessary, although as FunkMonk pointed out, it would be inconsistent to have a separate article for one species but not the other and I think having a separate article would allow some of the nitty-gritty details specific to S. aegyptiacus to be trimmed from the genus article to get it down to a more manageable length. I am opposed to creating a "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus" article; I think having separate articles for S. mirabilis and S. aegyptiacus is vastly preferable as a way to split the article. All of the objections to creating separate species articles also apply to splitting the taxonomy section off into its own article, and surely the taxonomy of Spinosaurus is less WP:NOTABLE as a topic in its own right than the valid, distinct species S. aegyptiacus and S. mirabilis. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, I'm more concerned with how to deal with the excessive information regarding many of the North African spinosaurid specimens that have significant controversy in terms of which truly represents Spinosaurus. That is more of the reason why I suggested creating a Taxonomy article, rather than just to make a primary home for the Spinosaurus mirabilis content, and probably the reason why other participants who oppose the merge approach seems to be fine with creating the Taxonomy article given that it's written fairly (as you can see I don't strongly agree or disagree with whether merging the S. mirabilis article approach is the best option). I see your point in that we can't merge anything more significant into this article, but regardless of whether the majority consensus favors the merging S. mirabilis approach or not, I believe this this issue might be much easier to solve than what we might think; splitting off this section and incorporating many of the background information from the Classification section would reduce the word count significantly, since the first two paragraphs (especially the second) on the Classification section are mostly about the outer systematics (i.e. family Spinosauridae) rather than Spinosaurus itself and the phylogeny section can be reduced in addition to this (which would mean that the Classification section also needs an overhaul, which can be done if the Taxonomy article is appropriately written in my opinion). Junsik1223 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retooling the classification section to be more about Spinosaurus proper should not be an issue, especially with the volume of content published post-2014. I think the broader family-level content should be reduced heavily, and have made a start by removing the 'Evolution' section in its entirety, this was a 1:1 copy of said section on Spinosauridae. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who wrote the Specimens section on the article, I believe that a Taxonomy section is beneficial as it will be able to properly cover both schools of thought on Spinosaurus (that being there are 2/2+ species of North African spinosaurid or that there is just S. aegyptiacus). AFH (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I only see a Spinosaurus genus article and a Taxonomy article as being useful. There's no need for S. mirabilis to have its own article in my opinion, it can be reasonably covered in the genus article and have taxonomy info in the taxonomy. Additionally, a Taxonomy of Spinosaurus article could also incorporate bloated information present on the Oxalaia and Sigilmassasaurus pages. AFH (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with incorporating information present on Oxalaia and Sigilmassasaurus pages. Now as you and LittleLazyLass pointed out, there seems to be a significant controversy in terms of what specific North African specimens truly represent Spinosaurus. I can see multiple subsections that highlight this aspect. So if the Taxonomy article does get created, do you think we could assemble some subsections of the Discovery and naming section into more coherent sections of that new article? Taxonomy of Allosaurus article seems to be a good basis to reference in terms of structure, so I'd suggest following it would be appropriate. Junsik1223 (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The section "Specimens" in this article could probably do with being entirely removed and pasted into a Taxonomy of Spinosaurus page instead. There would be more than enough content there to be able to form a coherent narrative what remains we have and the discussions surrounding the referrals, plus a discussion of species/genera referred to Spinosaurus (aegyptiacus) semi-regularly, with the most prominent there probably being S. maroccanus, Sigilmassasaurus and Oxalaia. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe that sorting the specimens into sections, similar to what I did on the current page, would be beneficial for the taxonomy article. I have them sorted by how they were classified in recent literature on them, for example MSNM rostrum is Spinosaurinae indet based on Smyth et al (2020). However, as mentioned elsewhere on this page, there are many different ideas on how many spinosaurids are present in North Africa. I think that the current Discovery and naming section should include the current history section + S. mirabilis, while the specimens and synonyms sections should be put in the Taxonomy article. AFH (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this page should be kept separate from the main Spinosaurus article, as the main page is so long and it is quite difficult to find specific information. Furthermore, this new discovery deserves its own page due to its anatomical and geological context. -Historianengineer (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)-[reply]
Reiterating what I said above: "I'm more concerned with how to deal with the excessive information regarding many of the North African spinosaurid specimens that have significant controversy in terms of which truly represents Spinosaurus. That is more of the reason why I suggested creating a Taxonomy article, rather than just to make a primary home for the Spinosaurus mirabilis content, and probably the reason why other participants who oppose the merge approach seems to be fine with creating the Taxonomy article given that it's written fairly (as you can see I don't strongly agree or disagree with whether merging the S. mirabilis article approach is the best option)." Junsik1223 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am also inclined to favor keeping the species' page separate. The main article is, as has been noted, already very long and crowded, the page for S. mirabilis seems perfectly substantial in its own right, and people looking for information on mirabilis would likely struggle to find what they're looking for in either the currently existing genus article or in a broad-sweep taxonomy page, given how complex the topic is in this case. A general taxonomy article might be also useful, but I favor keeping the other species in its own page. -Theriocephalus (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)-[reply]
Reiterating what I said above: "I'm more concerned with how to deal with the excessive information regarding many of the North African spinosaurid specimens that have significant controversy in terms of which truly represents Spinosaurus. That is more of the reason why I suggested creating a Taxonomy article, rather than just to make a primary home for the Spinosaurus mirabilis content, and probably the reason why other participants who oppose the merge approach seems to be fine with creating the Taxonomy article given that it's written fairly (as you can see I don't strongly agree or disagree with whether merging the S. mirabilis article approach is the best option)." It's good to know that at least you think a general taxonomy article can be useful. Junsik1223 (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the most significant concern is that there is excessive information on specimens of Spinosaurus, it seems to me that a more appropriate page to spin off would be "Specimens of Spinosaurus", as has been done for Tyrannosaurus and Archaeopteryx. I don't think the taxonomy of Spinosaurus is convoluted enough to warrant a page in its own right, and in fact it's probably a less taxonomically complicated genus than either Tyrannosaurus or Archaeopteryx, neither of which have a separate taxonomy page. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought of that option, but A Cynical Idealist did brought up their opinion in last year's WT:PALEO discussion about creating a "Specimens of" article which makes me feel conflicted about it (reiterating what A Cynical Idealist stated there): ""Specimens of" articles are better off avoided except in extremely specific cases where individual specimens have cultural or scientific relevance independently of their anatomical descriptions. Also the specimen list articles which do exist are focused primarily on the specimens themselves, rather than detailed discussions of the taxonomic controversies they imply." Junsik1223 (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
i agree AFH (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The specimens themselves of Spinosaurus often have lots of info depending on which one. For example, Spinosaurus B has lots of detailed info, controversy, etc on it that I believe would be better covered in a "Specimens of" article. Its anatomy especially wouldn't be properly covered in the main article. AFH (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the format should be based on the Allosaurus articles because it has more species than Spinosaurus and it still has only 1 page. Also, there's either too much detail in the Spinosaurus mirablis article or the Allosaurus article needs to be split. Paleorganizer (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree AFH (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that it should be merged because through Convergent evolution we can think that the Northern crested Newt evolve a crest on the head so Mirabilis could just be an abnormal specimen of Aegypticus and the fossils of Mirabilis are also very much Fragmentary so it could be plausible but we have to merge it, in such a way that it would look neutral and don't merge the entire article, leave some space between them and also start with "Spinosaurus Mirabilis is a dubious member of the genus Spinosaurus and its debatable whether its another species or just or just another different individual"(also sorry for the commas and more because I don't really use them). Mendakapur (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend reading the description paper and WP:OR. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to reformulate my position slightly. I'm still in favor of keeping the S. mirabilis page; I think that there is valid reason to keep distinct pages for notable dinosaur species, like how the Edmontosaurus and Camarasaurus species are currently split. If it is to be re-merged, then as a second-best option I would strongly favor using the model currently on Quetzalcoatlus, where Q. lawsoni has a distinct subsection within the larger page. Unrelatedly to the mirabilis issue, a "specimens/taxonomy of" article as a primary location for potential synonymy issues and specimens of debated/unclear species or genus also seems like it might be useful, but my opinions there aren't as strong. -Theriocephalus (talk) 03:39, 29 Apr 2026 (UTC)-

I do see two problems with the current setup:

  • First, we have an article for Spinosaurus mirabilis but not for Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, which I think is not consistent. I can't think of any other genus where one species has an article but the type species is not supposed to have one. However, having articles for both species, which both follow the same sectioning with many redundancies, might not the ideal solution.
  • Second, the Spinosaurus article only mentions S. mirabilis in the lead and the cladogram. Of course, it still has to discuss S. mirabilis in proportion to the rest of the article (per WP:SPINOFF). Consequently, a separate S. mirabilis article actually does not give us that much additional space.

Regarding a possible Taxonomy of Spinosaurus, that article would obviously on taxonomy only, and there are actually not many species to discuss. I think it helps a bit to shorten the main article (it could cover the species with their autapomorphies, and the neotype discussion). But at the moment, we are a bit above 8,000 words of prose, which would increase a little when S. mirabilis is merged back. There is certainly still potential to save quite some space by formulating more concisely. I therefore think that, at the moment, we might be ok with just one article, but that a "Taxonomy of" spinoff might be warranted when the article grows further.

I see the above argument that a separate S. aegyptiacus article might allow us to shorten the main article by moving out some details specific for this species. However, the species article would mostly have to cover the very same ground as the genus article (per WP:DUE), the details that the species article has but the genus article has not will be hard to find, given that both articles would be mostly redundant. I just don't think that's helpful to a reader. The advantage of the Taxonomy spinoff would be that it does not have to cover things like paleobiology. It would still come with some redundancy, but the info is presented in a different format and with a different focus and therefore would, I think, be a more useful addition than a species article (S. aegyptiacus) that's mostly a copy paste from the main article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually tons to cover when it comes to species, as there is S. aegyptiacus and S. mirabilis already on top of Sigilmassasaurus, Oxalaia, S. moroccanus, "Spinosaurus B", and many indeterminate forms that are relevant (ex: MSNM rostrum, NHMUK rostrum and mandibles, different quadrate forms). In my opinion, the "Taxonomy of" article is the best choice. We can include the specimens of uncertain status in the article. Additionally, Kellerman and colleagues are currently writing a new paper that will cover the taxonomy of the genus. This means that the taxonomy of the genus is about to be in flux, so rather than have a rapidly shifting and bloated main page, we can concisely cover new info on a Taxonomy page. AFH (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a good idea to create a draft for Taxonomy of Spinosaurus, to show the intended sectioning and notes (bullet-point format) stating what information should appear in each section? That would give us something much more palpable to discuss. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a pretty good idea. Maybe the discussion can be continued after that then. Junsik1223 (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would be open to working on the article. Furthermore, I already wrote a bunch of information that could be used in the "Specimens" section that is now absent from the page. AFH (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Habitual Resident ⟶ Taxation in Portugal (Discuss)

I propose merging Non-Habitual Resident into Taxation in Portugal because the topic is a specific tax regime within the broader Portuguese tax system and fits naturally within the scope of the target article.

The current article duplicates content that could be more appropriately integrated into a dedicated subsection (e.g., "Non-Habitual Resident (NHR)") within the broader taxation framework.

Proposed structure:

  • Create a subsection (e.g., "Special tax regimes")
  • Integrate key material:
 - history and introduction of the regime
 - eligibility criteria
 - tax benefits and exemptions
 - policy changes and reforms
 - criticisms and economic impact

Outcome:

Ma fraise (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per the rationale above, the proposal is well reasoned and broadly consistent with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. As a specific tax regime, the NHR scheme could reasonably be covered within the broader taxation article, which would help reduce duplication and avoid unnecessary content splitting per WP:CONTENTFORK, while preserving all relevant sourced material. The proposed structure seems clear and workable. —Lojmze (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Digital authoritarianism ⟶ Techno-authoritarianism (Discuss)

Digital authoritarianism was originally a redirect since 2019, but in 2025, the redirect was removed by @FrozenfiguresYT. Both articles are basically talking about the same thing, I suggest merging Digital authoritarianism into this article since this is older. Nemoralis (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The intro literally says "also known as Digital authoritarianism. If there isn't any other reason, and that this discussion is pretty much dried up, I say this might be a consensus. Theonethatknowsyouripaddress (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they should merge. My suggestion would be to merge into the page with the more common name, rather than whichever is older. My non-comprehensive reaction is that "digital authoritarianism" is the more common name, but I am not confident I'm correct. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have nothing to disprove you. Yeah. Let's merge this into the other Theonethatknowsyouripaddress (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. HudecEmil (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Scotts LawnService ⟶ TruGreen (Discuss)

Proposed merge of Scotts LawnService into TruGreen –

The TruGreen article could easily absorb this article's prose and infobox. Packerfan386beer here 16:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Most of the coverage is about the merger, so content in company would be better merged into TruGreen ~2026-20962-73 (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Natanson FBI raid ⟶ United States v. Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones (Discuss)

Proposed merge of Hannah Natanson FBI raid into United States v. Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones

The content of these two articles overlaps a lot, which is a maintenance burden. Would be good to have one central location to talk about the FBI raid. I think the broader article is the better merge target. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have the bandwidth to do the merge myself, but as long as you ensure no information in this article is lost during the merge I support it. Since I'm the page's creator saying it's okay to perform the merge I think that should be enough to close this merge discussion, but if you'd like to play it safe I understand either way. Actually, oppose: I feel like the articles have different enough of foci that it would be nice to keep them separate. If we merged, the article would be best described as United States v. Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones and FBI raid on Hannah Natanson's home, which is pretty verbose. It's also very convenient to have the FBI raid separate from the lawsuit template if you're working with templates and articles that rely on excerpts/hyperlinks to one topic but not the other, e.g., Government attacks on journalists during the Trump presidencies, Template:Democratic backsliding during the second Trump administration sidebar, and others that benefit from excerpting/linking the raid and the lawsuit separately. I think a fix in duplicativeness would be moving the FBI raid section in this article to the FBI raid article and excerpting the FBI raid article here. We could also excerpt this article in the FBI raid one. That way, we have no more duplicativeness while keeping these related but distinct topics separate. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since we haven't heard anything from other editors, if you wouldn't like to close this merge discussion can you notify some other article talk pages? Not sure an RfC is necessary. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a merge. The articles are short enough that a complete merge can be easily carried out. If expanded enough, the article could always be split again. Katzrockso (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Woolworths Group (Australia) ⟶ Woolworths (Australia) (Discuss)

Both the American business (F. W. Woolworth Company) and the UK business (Woolworths (United Kingdom)) combine both the corporate conglomerate and the retail side of the business. I don't see why the Australian version has to be any different? I also do not see the value in having two different articles. A lot of the history overlaps in my opinion.

I would be interested in hearing over thoughts on this. Icaldonta (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have noticed the footer of the website has "Woolworths Group Limited" at the bottom.
I think this discussion should be raised with high-rank Wikipedians for their call.
I do still feel the same way that Tesco supermarkets and Tesco PLC is just one article. Icaldonta (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have had a look and it is near impossible to pinpoint when Woolworths Group started. Woolworths Limited became Woolworths Group Limited in December 2017. However, by December 2017, Woolworths had near enough already reached the scale we see today. I just wanted to highlight this to add to the decision. Icaldonta (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article is about the supermarket. The group is basically an investor group that owns the supermarket, as well as subsidiaries that are intentionally kept under different names so consumers don't realise that multiple supermarkets are basically the same business. Also agree with the comments of Qwerty123M. Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe they are distinct companies, like Coles Group and similar companies, just lacking the scope. They also have seperate histories and inclusions and it would be a slight disservice to combine the two, especially the sister companies. Jordf32123 (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There is not simply one name for the buisness's entire operations, hence why we should not use a unified article for both the group and the supermarket. There is a hatnote at the top of the history section linking to the group's article, that means further history of the whole brand can easily be found with only one extra click and also means the article will not be too unwieldy to read, WP:NOMERGE advises that a merge should be avoided unless content can be cut down. I am concerned about the inclusion of irrelevant information about stores like Big W and Woolworths New Zealand which is seldom relevant to the supermarket's article. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying makes complete sense, but once you try and remove the overlap it becomes apparent how much content is duplicated on both articles and how intertwined the articles are, it makes it harder to keep separate and remove the overlap. I think this is very similar to Tesco in the UK. Woolworths Group just kind of "appeared" in its history, it's really hard to make it clean to define I have found. Icaldonta (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect on them being separate histories, they have the exact same history, that's the core issue being debated here Icaldonta (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find a whole lot of overlap, just summative information. Jordf32123 (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another approach would be just making them very distinct. Jordf32123 (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose the new article to be called Woolworths (Australia)

Icaldonta (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see no reason why the articles should be split.Industrialerror (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Woolworths Supermarkets Australia is just one of the Woolworths Group retail outlets, alongside Big W, Metro, Milkrun, Woolworths NZ / Countdown, etc. Why merge just the Australian full-line supermarket brand into the parent company and leave all the other subsidiaries with separate articles? Tomiĉo (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Other than Big W, which is a subsidiary, who's name derives from Big Woolworths (but debatably distinct enough for its own page considering how deeply integrated it is with the primary Woolworths Supermarket business, functioning more like a specialty subbrand in corporate structure), all of those are derivative services of the primary Woolworths Supermarket chain, with the New Zealand branch just being the local operations of Woolworths in that country. Milkrun is also a basic delivery service that is only distinguished by its special relationship with Woolworths Supermarkets. Metro is the small format of Woolworths Supermarkets. Besides, all of these can be classified as subsidiaries in a merged page. Woolworths Group is simply the holding company of Woolworths Supermarkets with all other companies deriving from its namesake business. Making Woolworths Group a single page makes sense. Industrialerror (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, my comment is in relation to what I understand is the proposed merger of two articles only. Are you instead putting forward a complete merger of all of Woolworths Group's subsidiaries across Australia and New Zealand into the parent article? If not, I think my point still stands that merging the Australian Woolworths Supermarkets article while keeping the other subsidiaries' articles separate would be an inconsistent approach. Tomiĉo (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of overlap, we need to find a way to counter this. What would you suggest? Icaldonta (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Woolworths Group and Woolworths are two distinct entities. That is like comparing Coles to Coles Group.
Also I don't find a lot of overlap, in fact a little bit of missing information. Jordf32123 (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support The split is unnecessary. Nikoletic126 (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support there is a lot of overlap. I also support merging Woolworths Metro (I don't even consider this unique from the Woolworths supermarket), Milkrun (I don't believe this is even notable on its own), and Woolworths NZ into the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose comment That would be too multifaceted (infobox, context, history etc.) and will probably go against readability guidelines. I would suggest at most the main companies in question be merged if anything. Jordf32123 (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you mean by main companies please? Icaldonta (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Woolworths Jordf32123 (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have just spent some time and tried to separate the articles a bit more in terms of reducing the overlap, but it is very hard as there is no clear start date of Woolworths Group, it just sort of "appears" in its history, but already Woolworths Limited owned the Big W stores and New Zealand business etc. I don't think the infobox would be too much of a problem, we'd just list Big W and Woolworths New Zealand etc as subsidiaries in the infobox. Icaldonta (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Still an issue of the article being too long and tied up into itself over two entities which are techincally unrelated Jordf32123 (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve completely missed the point. Icaldonta (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Both the holding company and the supermarket have independent coverage about their own activities. Each appears to meet WP:GNG as standalone topics. ~2026-20962-73 (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have just spent some time and tried to separate the articles a bit more in terms of reducing the overlap, but it is very hard as there is no clear start date of Woolworths Group, it just sort of "appears" in its history, but already Woolworths Limited owned the Big W stores and New Zealand business etc. I think this is the same as Tesco. Icaldonta (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Just some context, the Woolworths Group (Australia) is currently the same entity in Australia and New Zealand. Their New Zealand was formerly a separate company called Progressive Enterprises which became Woolworths New Zealand in 2018. This link on the Woolworths NZ website is helpful. I know having separate services for the holdings companies and supermarkets is a bit confusing but they do provide some history of the various rebranding, mergers and acquisitions. One option may be to merge Countdown (supermarket) with Woolworths (New Zealand supermarket chain) since these are basically the same entity since 2023 despite being originally separate brands.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andykatib (talk • contribs)
Assisting support from similar discussion User:Chocmilk03 as you helped out on Woolworths (New Zealand) discussion that proceeded forward, I would appreciate if you could offer some guidance here. Do you think the same rule applies, or is this different? Thanks.--Icaldonta (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Icaldonta: Hiya, thanks for the ping and apologies for my delayed response. I have to admit every time I try to look at this my eyes glaze over somewhat. On the face of it, I agree with you that there appears to be a lot of overlap between the two, but I'm not as confident... I think WP:NOMERGE might be more applicable here, in that the resulting article might end up being too long and clunky. I wonder if editing both articles to reduce duplicated history could be a helpful way to proceed, with the group article covering the corporate history at a higher level and the supermarket article retaining only the supermarket-specific elements.
But not necessarily opposed to a merge (and I don't think it's a good argument against that all other subsidiaries' articles would still be separate - this could make perfect sense where the subsidiaries have a differentiated brand, such as Woolworths NZ or Milkrun).
Sorry not to be more help! Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for your thoughts Icaldonta (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 2026

edit

June 2026

edit

Articles with consensus to merge

edit

If a merge discussion has been closed with consensus to merge, you can optionally list it at Wikipedia talk:Merging or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge to attract editors interested in carrying out the merge. Any editor can perform these merges by following the merging instructions!

Jump to a random article from the active mergers backlog!
   Merge a random article!

Notes

edit
  1. ↑ If the parameter is not specified, the notices lead to the top of each article's talk page. In {{Merge to}} and {{Merge from}}, it always leads to the destination talk page, but it is still preferable to link to a specific section of the talk page. When proposing a cross-namespace merge, these templates won't work correctly.
  2. ↑ This is an example usage:
    == Merge proposal ==
{{Discussion top|result=The result of this discussion was... . ~~~~}}

I propose merging ...
: Rest of the discussion...

{{Discussion bottom}}
  3. ↑ To add {{Old merge}}, use this format:
    {{Old merge
| otherpage = DESTINATIONPAGE
| result = '''not merged'''
| talk = Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merge proposal
| date = {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}
}}

See also

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_article_mergers&oldid=1358241127#Historical_merge_proposal_procedure"