This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Merge This page is within the scope of WikiProject Merge, an attempt to reduce the articles to be merged backlog and improve the merging process. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MergeWikipedia:WikiProject MergeTemplate:WikiProject MergeMerge

Using the log subpages to locate merge discussion backlog, I noticed that the pages have not been renamed with the parent page, i. e. they are still at WP:Proposed mergers/Log. Since they are populated by a bot, there might be a reason for keeping them there, but it seems odd to have subpages of a redirect containing the merger logs. (In fact, I find the location as subpages of a procedural page that was never used to propose their mergers a bit strange in the first place). Felix QW (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's neat. GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't merge discussions be open atleast 7 days (and some listed here have lasted much more than that), like other processes on Wikipedia (WP:RM, WP:XFD) ? I've noticed a few mergers lately that were closed without WP:SNOW-justification-mentioned in less than 3 days, even with a no-consensus closure. -- 65.92.244.114 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a section where one would want to merge and rename the article to reflect the merger.

Example: Dramatic structure and Narrative structure are under different articles, but I think the name should be changed to Story Structure when merged. Wikipedia policy to merge to move to new article is not clear.--KimYunmi (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KimYunmi: You can suggest a new name when you propose the merger. Richard3120 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KimYunmi I will take the best developed article and rename (move) it to the desired article name, then merge the other(s) into it. Or merge the two and then rename the resultant article, as Richard says above. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No one babysits either article that much, so I doubt there will be much resistance. I posted the request. But I also think it would be useful to add such an item to this article? Is that sort of item not supposed to be in this article? KimYunmi (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers § Awaiting Consensus

 – by GenQuest in Special:Diff/1144452360. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, and hope you're well! Just letting anyone watching this talk that proposer has requested closure of a merge discussion at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology)#Proposed merge of Invincible error into Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology). The merge discussion has not been unanimous, so I and others involved prefer someone uninvolved do the closing. That way, we can move onto the next steps for the articles. I understand that there's a backlog for merges, so I would appreciate any help provided. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be a simpler way to organize these? I.e., use article alerts to compile all active merge requests and then just have a section to help list the requests that haven't been picked up by the bot? I imagine that would be easier to maintain. czar 21:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge/Article alerts should be populating shortly czar 22:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GenQuest ^"scribble"

Hello, per point 3 of WP:PM, I am notifying this project of the merge discussion at Talk:Incel. This is based on a just recently closed AfD (see page of incels.is). The AfD closed with a consensus to merge, but since that consensus, I have increased the incels.is article a lot in sourcing and content though, so a merge may now not be necessary. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong page for that notice. I will copy to the noticeboard talk page. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Resolved by interested parties. GenQuest ^"scribble"

Merge help needed: 2018–2022 Nicaraguan protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) into Protests against Daniel Ortega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (See noticeboard for details.) Participants agree to merge, but seem stuck on the execution. Thanks, GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really the best option to limit this page to article (mainspace) mergers? It seems to me that something like a merge of sections between policies and guidelines would be of more interest to more editors than merges between two articles on related military units, or a school page into a school district one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I was wondering about adding an intermediate category on the page for articles where a merger has been approved after closure of the discussion, but the merge has not been performed yet. Like this we could move pages from "awaiting consensus", then have them sit in this category while they're being merged (that could be named "Merger approved and pending" or something else), and then move them to "answered requests" once the pages have been merged. Would that make sense? I know personally I would find the page easier to navigate this way. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 12:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I'm at it, I notice that among the new requests there are quite a lot of them that seem to be "type 1" (uncontroversial and obviously necessary), often from IPs (but not always). What should we do with those? Is it really worth it setting up discussions, putting up the banners, and moving them to "awaiting consensus"? Should we just move them to "answered requests" (or the new proposed category) and flag the pages to be merged? Should we flag the pages but just delete the request? Choucas Bleu (T·C) 14:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Choucas Bleu See MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell. rootsmusic (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Holding cell during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Nickps (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I can't find Wikipedia's protocol for proposed actions, I'm asking about how simultaneously proposed page handling are handled. (But the Talk page, where I'm asking, has been dead quiet since 2020.) rootsmusic (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list of new merger requests is getting clogged up, with the backlog dating back to this past January. Something should definitely be done to speed up the process. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that things are a bit out of control right now, it is quite unhelpful to declare that "something should be done about it". I see that you have filed eight entries on this page this year, each time only listing a merger proposition without doing anything else. If you want to contribute to "speed up the process", I suggest you look at what is written above the Merge requests section (or better yet, WP:MERGE) and tag the pages appropriately while creating a merger discussion. This way, your new requests will be able to be listed as "awaiting consensus" immediately, and that will reduce the work for other users trying to wrestle with this page. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 17:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The request "Merge Red (slur) into Red (disambiguation)" was done on Sep 20. I can't find any instructions for how to handle entries on this list. Can someone either direct me to the instructions or handle this? Thanks, Dan Bloch (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Danbloch, I moved the merge request from the new entries to the answered requests, thank you for pointing that out. The normal procedure is explained on the page, which is that ideally people should follow the merging process (tag the pages by putting banners, open a merge discussion) then come here to ask for input by filing an entry in the "Awaiting consensus" section ; however in practice a lot of stuff is added by people unfamiliar with how merging pages works, so they just write something in the new entries and then it is up to others to start the process. Right now the entries do not get updated from one category to another on a regular basis so that is why there is some sort of confusing stuff on the page. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 19:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The more important point here (which I address somewhat below, too), is that we need much clearer instructions on this page. In this case, you're responding with material that has to do with how to list a proposed merge (and that various of us end up having to fix those, because the proponent didn't do the steps needed to tag the page and open a merge-discussion thread at the appropriate talk page). But what Danbloch is reporting is that the merge in question has already happened, and it's not clear how to update WP:PM to reflect that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of an overhaul on this.

• Updated various "cases" and marked some resolved one way or another.
• Fixed various bits of mangled formatting, missing sigs, etc.
• Found this page in total disarray, largely attributable to instructions to bottom-post in one section then top-post in another, then bottom-post in another and so on. People's brains just melted and they put stuff where ever the hell they wanted. I've imposed a consistent bottom-posting order, in agreement with the entire rest of this website's operations, and adjusted the instructions to conform to this, after actually putting the material in this order.
• Archived pre-2025 material (left the last year or so's worth in the archive section on the page rather than moving it to 2024 subpage; someone else can if they want to).
• Simplified some instructions and made the result less "user-hateful".
• Cleaned up weird formatting that isn't in keeping with anything else on Wikipedia. In particular, adding tiny centered widgets and putting a bunch of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ or whatever characters around things you expect people to read is detrimental to the purpose of trying to get them to read it.
• Fixed typos, grammar errors, and Abuse of Capital Letters (MOS:SIGCAPS).
• Added semantic markup (emphasis, where actually appropriate, and code).
• Did various forms of list cleanup. See in particular WP:LISTGAPS. Also, putting a bullet in front of everything is very unhelpful. Use bullets to identify proposals, not every bit of chatter about proposals.
• It was very unhelpful to hide the links to the discussions (i.e., where we want people to actually go and do something) behind silly ">>>>>HERE<<<<<" stuff, which is both meaningless and two forms of inappropriate abuse of emphasis that just makes people's eyes glaze over.
• I didn't do anything with the top section; that should also be overhauled, especially to stop veering around between at least 5 different forms of emphasis (several of them not actually used on Wikipedia, like underlines and SCREAMING ALL-CAPS). Hint: if every other thing is emphasized, then nothing is, and it's just a morass of visually confusing text that hurts people's eyes – so they just skip it. It's no wonder hardly anyone who comes to this page bothers following even the most basic instructions.

Strong suggestion: Go to AfD, CfD, etc. and note the step-by-step formatting and instructions provided there, and adapt that approach. Include an actual instruction that if a merge proposal is expected to be considered it is required to tag the pages with merge tags and open the merge discussion at the appropriate talk page (and add a notice at the other talk page(s) pointing to that discussion), or the PM request will simply be closed as "Not done", because it will not be possible for a consensus to form in favor of it if no one knows the proposal exists or has anywhere clear to comment on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I completely agree, at some point last year I tried to get a handle on what is happening there (mostly by re-sectioning IIRC) but it is a complete mess. I think we can indeed retrieve it, and that what you did is a good start, but the entire concept behind the page is in need of an overhaul. I might be WP:BOLD and take a swing at it, I do not think anyone thinks the statu quo is satisfying right now. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛•💬•📋 21:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish and Choucas0: Same experience here. I would love to help work some of the backlog on this, but I threw my hands up in the air after a few minutes. The steps for processing these requests are opaque, and things are scattered in a way that makes it hard to tell what the status of any proposal/discussion/consensus is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions aren't very helpful and sometimes conflict (see below for my previous experience trying to understand where a request would go). Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or where they go when they're done. There's a section for finished items and a section for archived items. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've moved the 2024 archives to Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Archive 2024, and I archived everything from January–May 2025 at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Archive 2025. Keeping the current year's archives on the same page as the discussion kind of defeats the purpose of an archive.

I believe we should remove the "New requests" section once it's cleared out, because as Tenshi noted below, it's a direct contradiction of the "What this page is NOT for" instructions. We should also remove "Successful requests, articles merged" and "Unsuccessful requests" because they provide no benefit over sending them straight to the archive like you see at WP:CR for example. This would leave one section for active discussions and one section for pending merges. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support getting rid of "New requests", i.e. ideas for merges but where the proponent has not followed the instructions at all, so they just sit there and get ignored. Either follow the instructions, or go do something else.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support all of that, what you suggest was actually more or less my vision for what the page could become eventually, and I reworked the instructions with that in mind. Unfortunately I did not manage to continue after the Instructions overhaul; I was hoping the New Requests could get cleared progressively until they could get rid off, but did not get to that point. I am glad we can get things moving again, I believe this board has potential. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 12:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could simply remove all of the New requests since there's no associated merge proposal with them. I've already moved the ones where there was a discussion into the appropriate section. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've processed a few more under "New requests", including some where I started merge discussions and expressed my support. That leaves fifteen more. Should we lean toward creating discussions for them when practical, or should we archive most of them with a message that a discussion can be opened if desired? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on removing "New requests" once cleared as well as "Successful requests, articles merged" and "Unsuccessful requests". Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for just being BOLD. I was, in the cleanup I did, and the response has been positive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish I've cleared out the requests (by starting discussions or archiving as not done), and I simplified the instructions. I encourage anyone to look over the updated format and find spots where it can be made clearer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who has simply been following this cleanup effort from afar, I suppose because I placed one of the successful/merge pending requests on the page, I just wanted to say thank you to all who have put in effort to make this a more useful page. Kudos to everyone for the better organization. I think it will lead to more succesfully completed mergers. Coining (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more I think it needs a broader overhaul. A manually-updated list of merge discussions and pending merges has the benefit of potentially increasing visibility, but it has the drawback in that it can become out of date very quickly and there's a good amount of redundancy with other merge-sorting tools like the categories and Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log. I think this page will end up needing some sort of automation to be useful. I'm also wondering whether there's room for a topic-based merge listing, like a smaller version of AfD's topic sorting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what should be done here then in terms of automation, since past discussions were not implemented or inconclusive on what form of automation, though I do think a tool for handling discussions listed here would be useful. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 22:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the "mess" part at Wikipedia talk:Proposed article mergers § Should we transclude the automated list of proposals? FaviFake (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly related to the post immediately above, but... as a newbie to this page can anyone explain what's supposed to go where please? I have started a discussion for Treatise on Herbs and Tractatus de Herbis, which has received no input after nearly a week. I've tagged both pages. If I want input to the merge discussion (including on merge direction), where do I put this please? It's not at all clear to me whether it goes under 'New requests' or 'Awaiting consensus'? YFB ¿ 14:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should likely be listed in the "Awaiting consensus" section if it's tagged and a discussion has been started on the talk page of the target article. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Shouldn't that apply to everything on the whole page though, per "Verify that every step listed at Wikipedia:Merging § Proposing a merge has been followed; if not, complete the process, either until step 2 (tagging the pages with the appropriate banners)" in the 'Before posting' section? YFB ¿ 14:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, it's not exactly like that. The "New requests" section is for where that hasn't been done and editors can request other editors to do for them if they're having issues (per the box at Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merge). The "Awaiting consensus" section is a list of proposed merger discussions that have been properly tagged, and the "Answered requests" section being for when the discussion has been closed and where the merger either needs to be performed, has been done so already, or no merger will be performed.
However, the "How to use this page" section implies the opposite about the New requests section since it says it is for Requesting input to help establish consensus in an existing merge discussion. I'm not sure if I'm right about any of this though, since it seems conflicting. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Proposed merges. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chicken_burger#c-PeerlessBlue-20250215020400-merge_with_chicken_sandwich?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chicken_burger#Collaboration_encouragement_and_conclusion_of_the_article_based_on_other_reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongwranglers (talk • contribs) 07:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Common convention dictates this is merely a type of chicken sandwich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_sandwich_wars

Sources: https://ia803207.us.archive.org/6/items/uptodatesandwich00full/uptodatesandwich00full.pdf https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75893 ("THE UP-TO-DATE SANDWICH BOOK 400 Ways to Make a Sandwich" By EVA GREENE FULLER, 1909, The Caslon Press, Chicago)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0570178314000074 ("Suggested treatments for processing high nutritive value chicken burger" by W.Z.A. Mikhail a, H.M. Sobhy a, M.F. Khallaf b, Hala M.Z. Ali c, Samia A. El-askalany c, Manal M. Ezz El-Din, Annals of Agricultural Sciences Volume 59, Issue 1, June 2014, Pages 41-45)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6792075/ "Type of Sandwich Consumption Within a US Dietary Pattern Can Be Associated with Better Nutrient Intakes and Overall Diet Quality: A Modeling Study Using Data from NHANES 2013–2014" "grilled chicken/cheese/vegetable sandwiches"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4283357/ "Sodium, Saturated Fat, and Trans Fat Content Per 1,000 Kilocalories: Temporal Trends in Fast-Food Restaurants, United States, 2000–2013" "We analyzed the nutrient content of frequently ordered items from 3 US national fast-food chains: fried potatoes (large French fries), cheeseburgers (2-oz and 4-oz), and a grilled chicken sandwich." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongwranglers (talk • contribs) 05:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/14/dining/field-guide-to-the-sandwich.html "A Field Guide to the American Sandwich" APRIL 14, 2015 By SAM SIFTON "" Grilled Chicken Boneless chicken breast is grilled and served on a bun, often with lettuce, tomato and mayonnaise. According to the culinary historian Andrew F. Smith, the grilled chicken sandwich took off in the 1960s as it became associated with salads and dieting. "" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongwranglers (talk • contribs) 05:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.org/details/bestofbestfromvi0000mcke/mode/2up?q=%22chicken+sandwich%22 ("Best of the Best From Virginia: Selected Recipes From Virginia's Favorite Cookbooks" by McKee, Gwen, Moseley, Barbara, Publication date:1991, Publisher: Quail Ridge Press, Brandon, MS)

https://archive.org/details/eatingforlife00phil/mode/2up?q=%22chicken+sandwich%22 ("Eating for Life" by Bill Phillips, Publication date: 2003, Publisher: High Point Media)

https://archive.org/details/food00powt/mode/2up?q=%22chicken+sandwich%22 ("Food" by Powter, Susan, Publication date: 1995, Publisher: Simon & Schuster)

https://archive.org/details/200chickenrecipe0000lewi/mode/2up?q=%22chicken+sandwich%22 ("200 Chicken Recipes" by Lewis, Sara, Publication date: 2009, Publisher: Hamlyn, London, UK)

https://archive.org/details/southernliving1900leis/mode/2up?q=%22chicken+sandwich%22 ("Southern Living 1995 Annual Recipes" by Southern Living, Publication date: 1995, Publisher:Oxmoor House, Birmingham, AL)

If convention goes back over 100 years then these should be merged. I see no major issue in merging the two and simply dropping Chicken_Burger to a redirect. Chicken Burger has become an incorrect reference similar to how "Literally" has become to be used in the same vein as "Figuratively".

Ultimately, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_burger should be merged into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_sandwich, with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_burger becoming a subtype or variant similar to how different barbecue sandwiches are denoted by convention here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbecue_sandwich

Similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato_chips, it can be noted as "Chicken Burger (British English and Hiberno-English)", where essentially it's an incorrect reference but commonly used in that local area enough to warrant inclusion on the article as to clear up confusion.

This is further supported by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_fries "French fries,[a] or simply fries, also known as chips,[b] and finger chips (Indian English)"

Please see the convention used at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbecue_sandwich; "Regional variations" are listed. It's reasonable to conform to the same convention in this case, along with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_fries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato_chips

Which also do not use a local variant or reference to refer to the item.

crisps (British English and Hiberno-English)

finger chips (Indian English)

"Fried Chicken Breast Sandwich, also known as a Chicken Burger (British English and Hiberno-English)"

would be the correct way to denote the regional dialect variance of an existing item by all previous convention

Strongwranglers (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Strongwranglers you're in the wrong place, see WP:MERGE for how to propose mergers. FaviFake (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 14 § Articles to be merged. FaviFake (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log lists all active merge discussions and is kept up to date by Merge bot (managed by wbm1058). The manually-updated list of proposed mergers at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers#Articles proposed for merging doesn't really provide anything that can't be done by the log pages. Would it make more sense to replace it with transclusions of the log pages? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d support that. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 00:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the manually added entries have a bit of text explaining the merge, while the automated entries only show the names of the articles. But the manually edited list is far from complete and not well maintained. Replacing it by the automated list would probably make sense. We could also keep them both and add a prominent link to the automated list at the top of the manually edited list, but that might be more confusing than helpful. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the change so we can see if this version is preferable. This list is naturally much longer than the manual list, as this one includes all open discussions instead of a random assortment. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is so much better! Thanks.

Is there a way to do something similar to Wikipedia:Proposed article splits? FaviFake (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only aware of a log system like this for proposals to merge. Similar tracking for proposal to split, consensus to merge, and consensus to split might be worth looking into, but that would probably just mean setting up more bot maintenance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've set Category:Articles currently being merged to be sorted by month since the backlog is increasing. FaviFake (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The newest listing on § Articles currently being merged is more than 4 months old. I think the section should be removed entirely after the restructuring, but I'm not sure where we'd point people who want to advertise a closed discussion? Or even a ongoing discussion, now that the list is automated. What pages or noticeboard are more active than PAM, even if their scope is not as narrow? FaviFake (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal would be to get an automated list set up for mergers with consensus. Is there a particular need to advertise specific discussions? All of the mergers with consensus are going to need attention. For more general purpose advertising of discussions, people typically use noticeboards or associated WikiProject talk pages. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I guess.

if that section doesn't get automated by a bot, would you personally prefer it be kept, or removed and replaced with a note to optionally post at the Merge Wikiproject? FaviFake (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think @Thebiguglyalien was suggesting that it should be replaced with automation, and that the discussions don't really need to be singled out, since all merges will need their own care taken to them; and if they really do need to be singled out, it can be taken to other noticeboards for assistance. ~ oklopfer (💬) 14:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's also what I understood. I was asking what they would prefer would happen in the possibility that it isn't replaced with automation in the near future. (Since you're here, what do you think?) FaviFake (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is not automation, my opinion would be to make the category more prominently displayed in the section (rather than just in a 'see also' header), and point people to noticeboards, or even the respective discussions within the articles-being-merged's talk spaces. I don't find the section very helpful in its current state; it made more sense when things could be moved down from proposed to in-progress. ~ oklopfer (💬) 15:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the change, but am unsure where Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers#Articles currently being merged fits in now. The instructions at the top of the page should also be altered, since right now they seem to imply one should be editing the autogenerated lists. ~ oklopfer (💬) 00:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the header text for the time being so it doesn't mention adding discussions manually. The "Currently being merged" definitely needs some consideration on how it should function. Ideally it would cover everything under Category:Articles currently being merged, but the category on its own doesn't differentiate between "being merged from" and "being merged to". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain in more detail what would need to happen for it to work?

The {{Being merged to}} and {{Being merged from}} templates for some reason still aren't wrappers around {{Being merged}}, unlike {{Merge to}} and {{merge from}}. Would turning them into wrappers help? FaviFake (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems part of the issue is, ironically, duplicate/overlapping templates - there are both {{Being merged from}} and {{Merging from}}, and likewise {{Being merged to}} and {{Merging to}} ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I nominated {{Merging from}} for deletion about a month ago but for some unknowable reason they were kept separate.

If someone decides to turn {{Being merged to}}, {{Being merged from}}, and {{merging from}} into wrappers for {{Being merged}}, it would benefit everyone. FaviFake (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that {{Merging from}} can take multiple from inputs, while {{Being merged}} can only take one. The latter would have to be updated to replicate this behavior, and potentially do a condition check to generate the right ambox; though the amboxes could also be kept to the wrappers.

Other than that, it seems like it should be a rather straightforward consolidation; {{Being merged}} also already has a dir={to,from} parameter. We could very conceivably have Wikipedia:Being merged/Log just as there is Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log, and use {{Merge log entry}} (which could also easily be made ambiguous to proposed and in-progress merges), though I have no idea how such automation would be configured. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I guess the first step would be to add the "multiple pages" functionality to {{being merged}} and turn {{merging from}} (and {{merging to}} to do both) into a wrapper. Then we can discuss if there is enough "being merged" backlog to justify an automated system similar to this one. FaviFake (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going to take a crack at it over the next few days, I've cloned the two templates to my sandbox to tinker with.

One thing I'm noticing that might make this a bit difficult/interesting is that {{Being merged}} does have {1,2,3}= params, and they are different than {{Merging from}}.

I think I will try creating a new [a]rticle-#= parameter for {{Being merged}}, which the nameless parameters in an updated and wrapped {{Merging from}} can then pass to, as I don't want to break any old functionality. ~ oklopfer (💬) 14:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, how messy! I think the main thing to keep in mind is consistency with the parameters of {{Merge}}, {{Merge to}}, and {{merge from}} (which for some reason are all different templates!).

{{Merging from}} and {{Being merged}} are never added to a page on their own, usually the closer just changes "{{merge to| etc" to "{{being merged to| etc" in the code, so I think the only priority would be to keep the params working between these templates. If that works, we're golden! FaviFake (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the proposed merge templates can take up to 20 unnamed params (all for articles). It would be easier to transfer that functionality, though I am concerned about the cases {{Being merged}} is currently used. Based on the template instructions, it seems like using {target,discuss,spacetype}= is the standard, but just thinking about outliers. ~ oklopfer (💬) 14:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got the hard part done @ User:Oklopfer/Template:Being merged! Now can take up to 20 inputs. Will further align other parameters with {{Merge}} later ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! FaviFake (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Params should all be aligned now so that just the name can be swapped (i.e. {{Merge -> {{Being merged, or rather {{User:Oklopfer/Template:Being merged until we have tested and sync back into the main template) - feel free to test and let me know if there are any issues!

E: using the template usage data, I did quite a bit of testing of my version as a drop-in replacement for the current template. I've made target= flexible so that if it still used in the old fashion (in place of unnamed parameter 1=), then that functionality of it will remain; if it is used in addition to unnamed parameter 1=, then it will function the same way as it does in {{Merge}}, being only available when no direction is specified. ~ oklopfer (💬) 20:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Luckily I had had already created {{Being merged/testcases}}, so I just copypasted your code into the sandbox. I see several improvements, such as the italics and obviously more than 1 page is supported, but in the test "Placed in source page w/o talk" and "section" the result is worse:

Currently:

There is consensus to merge this page into List of Latin phrases. You can help implement the merge by following the resolution on the destination's talk page and the merging instructions.

Your version:

There is consensus to merge this page with List of Latin phrases. You can help implement the merge by following the resolution at and the merging instructions.

It seems the |dir= parameter is ignored, which makes the wording less clear and doesn't return a link to the destination's talk page. Iif |dir= is in the three main {{Merge}} templates, this should probably be fixed?

I don't have much time atm but the rest looks good! FaviFake (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FaviFake easy fix - should be all good now! ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the testcases are unchanged... ? FaviFake (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? They look like they're working fine to me now, and I did see the issue before. It was resolved with Special:Diff/1323246026 ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still says "with" instead of "into" in both tests.

(Unrelated, but I think it should link directly to the talkpage of the destination, otherwise the destination would be linked twice.) FaviFake (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. I can fix that wording, too.

The problem with linking directly to the talk page of the destination is that the namespace is ambiguous. AFAIK, I can only use WP:MAGICWORDS for the current page's talk. ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good solution. I guess that's why WP:MERGE says this?

When proposing a cross-namespace merge, these templates won't work.

FaviFake (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'with' -> 'into' wording should be fixed now ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

noticing another issue i will fix later, |dir=from|blah}} works different from |dir=from|target=blah}} ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks. For the destination's talk page link i guess we can take inspiration from how {{merge to}} handles it (but changing it based on |dir= of course:

 {{{discussion|{{{discuss|{{{talk|{{TALKPAGENAME:{{{1}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|Discuss]]

FaviFake (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That works! ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

now they should really all be fixed up. ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I pushed it to "production" since it seems to work :)

Now that that's done, i guess we just need to turn these templates into wrappers?

• {{merging to}}
• {{being merged to}}
• {{merging from}}
• {{being merged from}}

and then these?

• {{merge to}}
• {{merge from}}

FaviFake (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just fixed up a few small import errors; but yes, that is indeed the next step! ~ oklopfer (💬) 19:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've now updated the 'being merged' wrappers, and turned the 'merging' templates into redirects to them

All seems good! just going through Category:Articles currently being merged now and cleaning up pages that specified the wrong direction (probably not going to do all 200, though... that was a lie, I should be through the whole list by day's end. Got through everything except L/M/N/P/R so far) ~ oklopfer (💬) 23:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Thanks. FaviFake (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oklopfer I noticed a weird behaviour in Special:Permalink/1322174001 and Wikipedia:Translators available. The correct target page is displayed, and the link to the destination talk page works, but the target links to a mainspace article outside the Wikipedia: namespace. Can this be fixed?

And @Chrisahn, is the namespace issue related in any way to the changes you're planning to make to {{pagelist}}? Because if it is, I think this would be a good time to go ahead! FaviFake (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I noticed the template still misbehaves sometimes if target= is used. See this example, in which the default wording is used despite a target being specified:

{{Being merged|spacetype=article|discuss=Talk:Mother 3#Proposed merge of Development of Mother 3 into Mother 3|target=Mother 3|date=November 2025|nocat=yes}}

FaviFake (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually the intended behavior!

• If no direction is specified, and no unnamed (1=) parameter is provided, target= works as if it were 1=
• If both target= and 1= are provided, still without direction, then it treats target as the to location

The nspace stuff on the other hand is not intended, and I can take a look at solving that today. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, that makes sense. I assume that's not really a common usage so it's fine!

I'd wait for input from @Chrisahn regarging the namespace stuff, since this seems to be ready to fix in module:pagelist. See the first row of Template talk:Pagelist#c-Chrisahn-20250919092400-Why_does_Module:Pagelist_call_mw.title.new(). FaviFake (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For record/reference, I did also notice the nspace issue here: Special:Permalink/1322178540 ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by Special:Diff/1323425454. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FaviFake: Good point! Yes, that's caused by the weird behavior of {{Pagelist}}, and we should fix it. In this case, the problem was exacerbated by the indirection: {{Being merged}} contains nspace={{{nspace|all}}}, so it uses all if no nspace is set in the template invocation. That fixes the problems with {{Pagelist}}. So far so good – unless nspace is empty, because an empty parameter is not a missing parameter! (See mw:Help:Templates#Default values.) But {{Being merged from}} and {{Being merged to}} used nspace={{{nspace|}}}, which turned a missing nspace into an empty nspace. I fixed the latter two templates, but I'll also try to get {{Pagelist}} fixed. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work, I look forward to it being finally fixed! (And to serial commas being added to it, but that's irrelevant) FaviFake (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the only templates left to turn into wrappers are {{merge to}} and {{merge from}}! We're almost there. FaviFake (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+ the bulk of that work will just be implementing a dir param into {{merge}}. Though I'm wondering if we should get more consensus in support of such a change first, since the direction-specific versions are used on significantly more pages than the ambiguous one: merge merge to merge from; I also wonder how it would impact merge bot's functions ~ oklopfer (💬) 20:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm wondering if we should get more consensus in support of such a change first
I mean, this is one of the most, if not the most, watched noticeboard for mergers. I personally feel this is enough; I've also notified Template talk:Merge of this discussion.

We'll definitely need to do a lot more testing, but I feel like we've already hit and resolved most roadblocks that we could encounter thanks to the {{being merged}} couple.

Not sure about merge bot, but if we do it well, nothing should change. Afaik, all parameters are identical except the new parameter, |dir= FaviFake (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely need more input from other editors. This isn't the right place for discussing major rewrites of these templates. That should happen on their talk pages, i.e. Template talk:Being merged and Template talk:Merge. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"a dir param into {{merge}}" – I don't think that's a good idea. On the contrary – we should implement {{Being merged to}} and {{Being merged from}} as separate templates that don't invoke {{Being merged}}. See Template talk:Being merged#Confusing logic, part 1. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are any further changes that need to be made in this area? The merge process should in theory go much more smoothly once there's a streamlined process for slated mergers, and then we can update the merge instructions accordingly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would still be nice to have automation to Wikipedia:Articles currently being merged/Log which uses {{Merge log entry}} so we could transclude it in the section on this page just as is done for proposed, but again not sure how to do so. Maybe need to ping the creator of User:Merge bot to set this up? And would want to know what else they need for it to get organized.

I plan on updating the documentation of {{Being merged}} to be more verbose and provide more examples like {{Merge}} does this weekend. I also removed the old usage of target from {{Being merged}} yesterday (after confirming the usages of it were gone from articles in mainspace) so that it is not performing multiple functions as we went over in Template talk:Being merged#Confusing logic, part 1.

Besides automation and updated documentation, though, I think that's it! ~ oklopfer (💬) 21:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other option would be to have the "being merged" section be a place where you post individual requests if it's a complex merge or a second opinion is needed on how to do it. But I'd rather have a full list if possible. Also, it would help if there were some way to visually distinguish active discussions and mergers in progress, otherwise you could scroll through the page in a way where the dividing line between discussions and mergers in progress would be blink and you miss it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they both end up becoming automated lists, I think we should probably split it out into two pages, Proposed article mergers and Active article mergers. Having them together was mostly useful because ones that reached consensus to merge could simply be moved to the section below; but if manual intervention is no longer required, it no longer makes sense to keep them tied together (in my opinion). We could probably set up both pages so each one has the main list, followed by a special attention section. ~ oklopfer (💬) 21:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that idea. The topics are closely related and I think one noticeboard is best. However, I wouldn't be opposed to moving the noticeboard to another name, like Merge noticeboard. FaviFake (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any ideas on how we could address the issue BUA brought up then, of visually distinguishing between the two? ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could collapse both by default and then let the user expand the one they want. FaviFake (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058 I hope you don't mind this ping - would setting up an active mergers log (equivalent to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log), derived from Category:Articles currently being merged, be possible/trivial for you to add to Merge bot?

There are 3 template formats it would need to pull from, roughly equivalent to {{Merge}} / {{Merge to}} / {{Merge from}} (the examples below were recently aligned to function as drop-in replacements once mergers have been made active; the primary difference is in the additional dir parameter for {{Being merged}}):

1. Basic: {{Being merged}} / {{Being merged|dir=to}} / {{Being merged|dir=from}}

2. Wrappers: {{Being merged to}} / {{Being merged from}}

3. Aliases: {{Merging}} / {{Merging to}} / {{Merging from}}

Plus the special situation of multiple articles to one destination, as in {{Merge}}: {{Being merged|article1|article2|target=destinationArticle}} (only for the main template {{Being merged}} and its alias {{Merging}}, with no dir specified)

Let me know if I can clarify anything! ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that {{merge backlog}} needs to be fixed. It says "merge a random article", but it leads to a random article where a merger is proposed and consensus is still being worked out. It should either be a button to join a random discussion, or it should lead to something in Category:Articles currently being merged. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The largest backlog is in the non-closed discussions, which are almost always older than 7 days and often already have consensus and should therefore be closed. I'm leaning toward a change of the label, but I don’t have any good ideas in mind at the moment, FaviFake (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How's this:

{{Merge backlog/sandbox}}

Jump to a random article from the active mergers backlog!

   Help merge a random article!

{{Merge backlog/sandbox|proposed}}

Jump to a random article from the proposed mergers backlog!

   Discuss merging a random article!

(Centering is broken here due to indentation and I can't really work around it without getting too hacky, but the template is not meant to be used in such situations anyway; I've de-indented them in my comment to show proper examples)

+ the template only appears on a few pages, so should be very easy to place the proposed param in pages that need it; mostly asking if my wording choices seem good.

I've been working on a doc for it here ~ oklopfer (💬) 19:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these labels seem misleading. Regarding the first, the users won't help anyone, as it's highly unlikely that another user is currently merging the page (and if that's the case, it's not even included because the {{being merged}} template should be replaced with {{in use}} when merging.)

Regarding the second, as i said, most discussions already have enough consensus and enough time has passed. So the user wouldn't be sent to an active discussion often. Most of the time, they would just have to carry out the merger themselves, or close the discussion as not merged. FaviFake (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they're any more misleading names than the categories that they are pulling from. It is difficult to come up with concise wording that would suggest what should "really" be done at the articles, both with the backlog button and the category titles themselves. ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By a very rough count, I figure approximately 6 new merge proposals are opened every day. If we can close at least that many each day, the overall list will shrink. "Closing" in this case means any of: determining there's consensus and completing the merge, determining there's consensus and adding Template:Being merged, determining there is not consensus and removing the tags, or removing stale tags that don't correspond to an active merge discussion. Fewer active proposals means more attention to the remaining ones, which means they get closed sooner, and so on. Just something to think about to make this more manageable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage editors to actually do the merges, rather than that just kicking it into the long grass by using being merged or merging to. I very rarely use either of these for precisely this reason - the recent increase in its use is the reason for the ever-expanding list in that category. Klbrain (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are ready to be merged whether they're in the category or not. Adding them to the category is helpful in itself because it reduces the number of active proposals and lets us know which ones are actually ready. It's great when people complete the merge as they close the proposal, but if people feel pressured to complete merges that they close, then they're just going to stop closing merge proposals. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this reminder to be bold and not feel pressured to complete the merges. For many of the discussions, it is rather easy to determine consensus (or lack thereof); I have started working through these from the top of the list, while leaving the ones I am not so sure about. As WP:M4 states, if the consensus (or lack) seems clear and uncontroversial, most of these requests don't actually need to be open for more than just a week. ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I try to perform the merge when I close the discussion, but sometimes the consensus is clear but the merger is complex or I just don't have time. Since I've already read the discussion, I might as well avoid making someone else read it again by closing it. FaviFake (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to overwhelm, but it looks like there has been a massive number of proposals opened this month; November + December 2025 alone constitute almost 75% of all current proposals. While normally that number would appear to be in our favor, it is nearly 700 articles from those two months (or just over 300 mergers, according to the count from the transcluded logs), with around 250 articles in total (rough estimate 125 mergers) for all other months.

In comparison, the consensus-to-merge category only has 166 articles in total for all months (rough estimate 83 mergers).

Unfortunately, WP:WPMERGE seems to be mostly dead. Any ideas where we could reach out to get more hands on? ~ oklopfer (💬) 03:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We'll just process them as they come in, with a one month delay. We're just about at the point where everything from November is a month old and can be closed unless there's still recent discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can begin chunking away again over the next few days; though I want to be mindful of how much will just be shifting the backlog between categories. I also imagine many of the ones from the last 2 months will have low or no interaction, so it is likely to raise the question of WP:SILENCE. In those cases, I like what you have been doing with pinging the noms as check in, and will try to follow suit. ~ oklopfer (💬) 06:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, WP:MERGE says even a week is enough. I usually always close proposals older than a week unless they're still active. FaviFake (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Merge § Include draft merge proposals in the merge backlog. FaviFake (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do we think about setting up the page so the top section is collapsed per month, and then the next section is a more traditional noticeboard like WP:ORN and WP:VPM? The page was trying to use a blend of these in a way that made both of them ineffective before we made the listing aspect more solid, and it might be productive to now make the noticeboard aspect more solid. A proper noticeboard would be more flexible for notices that a discussion needs additional attention, questions about edge cases when merging, assistance in setting up or carrying out mergers, etc. We'd also be able to set up a more traditional noticeboard archive instead of the manually copied-and-pasted one at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Archive 2025. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I not sure about this. Firstly, I prefer having a complete list of all active merge discussions i can read all at once. If every month is collapsed, I'd have to click 8 buttons just to see the full list.

On the noticeboard front, the last proposal posted here was from 5 months ago. There might not be enough activity here to justify a full noticeboard setup. Almost everything you listed can already be posted in the second section (discussion needs additional attention, questions about edge cases when merging, assistance in setting up or carrying out mergers) except questions not linked to a specific proposal. I guess we could expand it scope to merging in general? But I'm not fully convinced there would be enough activity for a normal noticeboard.

However, looking at this talk page, the discussions do look similar to what would be posted to a "Merge noticeboard".

This whole PAM thing is so weird. We have three templates for proposing a merger, the actual PAM page is almost unused compared to its talk page, and the discussions that take place in its talk page are similar to those of a WikiProject, a proper noticeboard, and WT:MERGE.

Yeah I have no idea actually. FaviFake (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]