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

Hey, I've requested assistance with adding a split. I've tried following the instructions of doing it myself, but as it's a template, I'm not sure how to do it, as when I add template:split and link the name, it leads to an article and not the proposed template page (even-though I wrote it as "Template: <new name>"). Thanks to anyone who can help me out. --Gonnym (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Sorry reply is so late. Try Wikipedia Talk:Templates for discussion, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 04:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 3#Holding cell? which is related to this page. --Trialpears (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this in the category "Wikipedia Humor?" I thought these were all serious proposals. Vorbee (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vorbee: not every proposal... Richard3120 (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vorbee: That was an April Fools' Day one-off. Archived now. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Working
Don't know if this is the right place to bring an uninvolved editor to Merger discussion for merging newly created ATK Mohun Bagan FC to Mohun Bagan Athletic Club. A consensus has been reached and was actually merged here with proper note but was reverted by another editor demanding closure by uninvolved editor. After that no new discussion was done, repetition of same thing again and again. If someone can please complete the closure otherwise the discussion is disrupted several times and the discussion templates has been removed several times from the concerning articles. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May take a bit. That's alot of words... Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GenQuest, yes I know..tonnes of words. Take you time and can ask anything regarding these. Thank you for taking this pressurised load. Drat8sub (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Anglo-French War (1778-1783)#Merge proposal there is an initiative that is amiss procedurally. It should have initiated at the target article, "France in the American Revolutionary War". We need some guidance and perhaps remedial action to get us wiki-fencing editors back on track procedurally.

The merger is initiated by editors appealing to the precedent in an earlier merger of "Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1783)" into "Spain in the American Revolutionary War". I am disagreed with these two efforts to conflate (1) the “European war 1778-1783” of Great Powers over empire (their Simms, my Morris) with (2) the "American Revolutionary War 1775-1783": a conflict among British subjects in North America & North Atlantic over independence (Britannica “American Revolution: United States History” by Willard M. Wallace; and (2) Routledge Dictionary of War “American Revolution (1775-83)” by George Childs Kohn (1999)).

This issue is apart from (a) elaborating the Euro-RS “War of the American Revolution” (WoAR) encompassing all European-related activity 1775-1783 among merchants, financiers, and especially government war and diplomacy – an article non-existent at Wikipedia, lost in a redirect to “American Revolutionary War”; or (b) expanding the article Second Hundred Years' War. The issue is (c) Whether Wikipedia is to have an “ARW-America”, or wp:original research “ARW-Global”.

PROCEDURE posts on the Merge: "NOTES ON PROCEDURE", "Wikipedia article titles", "Merging by edit".

SUBSTANCE posts on the American Revolution: "English usage for "occur in"", "Unsourced wp:Original research", "Historiography of the American Revolutionary War". Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are cross-wikispace mergers allowed? I'm specifically talking about merging Draft articles into Live Wikipedia articles.

1) ...are they even allowed?

2) Is such a move of content from Draft to Live considered a merge?

3) if not, is there a work-around?

Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks, GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My view - Yes, it's allowed, yes it's a merge. That said, I'll send a post to Articles for Creation Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It wouldn't make any sense for it not to be allowed. It is obviously possible to move a draft to mainspace, and thereafter to merge the content into another mainspace article. Merging from a draft merely skips this extra step. I would also note that I have seen numerous instances where content from a draft is copied into mainspace without attribution, and merging the edit history of the draft into that of the mainspace copy is the most appropriate means to insure correct attribution. BD2412 T 17:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, they are allowed. No, they are not necessary. As BD2412 states, there are often instances where a draft is copied directly into the article space, BUT if the creator of the page is the only significant editor (I'm not counting the addition of WP:AFC templates or comments) then there is not an attribution issue and a {{histmerge}} is not required. However, if there are multiple editors, or the copy/paster is not the same as the article creator, then a histmerge will be necessary. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• BD2412; Primefac, Oiyarbepsy: Thanks for the input. I am in fact talking about situations requiring attribution. I wasn't sure the above would be compatible with MOS:DRAFTNOLINK, as in a merge/redirect, a link to the source article (the Draft article in this case) is usually left behind in the edit summary of the target article. Should these drafts, perhaps, first be moved to main article space and then merged as SOP? – or does the histmerge cover all that? GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRAFTNOLINK is saying that in the article Foo there shouldn't be a link to Draft:Bar; edit summaries are the perfect place to put such attribution, and if it is given then there is no histmerge required. Primefac (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is consensus that redirects from Draft space to article space not only are okay, but are a good thing, so without a history merge, leave the draftspace redirect behind and place the standard merge tags. If there is a history merge, the merge tags aren't required since the draft history will be part of the article's history. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftspace to Mainspace mergers.

1) ...are they even allowed?

Of course, yes.

2) Is such a move of content from Draft to Live considered a merge?

Don't do it.

3) if not, is there a work-around?

If there is a draft that can be merged into an article, first move the draft to mainspace, and second do the merge and redirect. This is preferable because it is better to keep the attribution history in mainspace. Draftspace might be entirely deleted one day. Downstream uses of Wikipedia may not keep draftspace in their package.

I further think that draftspace to article merging *should* be done, than article spinouts in draft space *should not* be allowed, *unless* there is consensus (or at least mention) on the article talk page to draft the spinout. Draftspace is a lonely hidden place, and if the talk page doesn't point to it, then mainspace-only editors will never find it. However, better, do article spinouts by writing directly into a new article. I think it is a common mistake for a new user to put new material into a draft, when it could have been put into an article, and their draft fails UNDUE and notability, and then gets declined and lost. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Joe. That addresses my main concern, re: redirected Drafts disappearing down the line, thus losing attribution. All this is very helpful, folks. Thanks. BTW: Is this already codified anywhere? Or are we deciding SOP here and now? GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding the SOP here and now? I think yes! And that’s the best way to get an SOP written, or at least, started. Where would be be written? Would anyone find it there? Can it be shortened down to “preserve attribution”? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I added instructions based on the above to WP:Merging, see WP:MERGEDRAFT. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Object to SOP: taking an action based on a speculation that draft space may disappear in the future is applying a CRYSTAL BALL, and the current protocol creates more problems than it solves. Moving a substandard draft to article space, even if only briefly, creates inappropriate content in article space, and breaches the idea of when it is appropriate to move content from draft to article space.

The current SOP also doesn't allow for the (common) case where the draft article is created with a title that matches the title in article space. For example, in a current merge I completed, Draft:Igor Danchenko had been created when Igor Danchenko already existed. To apply the current SOP would mean that an arbitrary new title in article space would need to be created, which would then have to the redirected to the main article. So, my counterproposal is to keep the process simple and just allow a merge from the draft space to article space, on the grounds that the move then merge protocol is administratively cumbersome and unnecessary. Klbrain (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Klbrain. Keeping attribution in mainspace is very sensible, and speculating that draftspace, which is not the encyclopedia-proper, may not exist always and in downstream products, is NOT NOTCRYSTAL. Klbrain’s problem is a failure of commonsense, and results in the SOP simple instructions being prevented, which is a good thing. Klbrain, do you realise that if you merge from someone else’s draft, an attribution search from the mainspace title may well never find the authors, because also quite plausibly one would start and stop searching incoming links with mainspace. Also, reverting due to a special case not catered for is not moving forwards. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal feedback received, SmokeyJoe. However, I contend that properly placed Merged from templates in the mainspace talk pages, which are placed with merges in the mainspace, preserve attribution, so there is no attribution problem. I also note that moving a substandard draft to article space breaches WP:DRAFTIFY. I also believe that the entire process is wrong, not just the special case of identical titles. Please don't be offended by WP:BRD; you proposed and implemented a significant change over the course of 24 hours, which is a perfectly reasonable bold action as long as you tolerate discussion.

So, to be clear, my view is that we should maintain the status quo of allowing merges from draft space to article space without the additional step of a move. Klbrain (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have “disallowed” merging from draftspace. I had not considered the draftspace title matching the mainspace title, but have previously suggested a technical block to creating a draft under the same title as an article. I still think a fair attempt at a draft that is better merged is worth moving to mainspace before the merge, assuming the redirect is a good idea. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]