Is this a good idea? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion was recently created in hopes of assisting tricky merging situations. But now that I look closer, I see that project and this project have significant overlap. While they are similar, they do seem to have very different time frames, and different methods to accomplish the same goals.

I would like to see Merges for discussion resolve things in a matter of days rather than in years. In that sense, I think that the backlog of this project could be absorbed into that process, and a quicker more streamlined way of generating merge feedback can be created. I would appreciate if any interested editors could join discussion on the talk page of that project. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two processes should be merged (haha, something ironic about mentioning that) but I think the biggest problem is lack of traffic. This might be solved by a link at the top of the WP:AFD page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? Please explain your idea further. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heck it is there already. But anyway, in essence all the mergers suffer from a severe lack of traffic, which is why they remain open so long with only a few comments. There needs to be linkage highlights. I just noticed now that proposed mergers is actually linked on the top of the AfD page (but I hadn't seen it in 2.5 years). The other place is at the top navbox of WP:AN. template:editabuselinks Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. Ok. So we need to think of another way to attract attention that is not pointy. CENT? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh - I know. The whole topic is such a vexed one....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a whole bunch of Done tags to anything that was redirecting to one of the two articles suggested to be merged. I'll leave it like this for a few days, then I'm going to remove all the finished merges. Hopefully it will clean this page up a bit and make it look a little more managed. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. Flatscan (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as we have two pages covering the same process (that is, merging articles), this would be a good time to discuss which format people prefer, and then conform the existing page to that format.

Essentially a list of mergers only, all discussion takes place on the destination article's talk page.

• By simply linking to the Talk page discussion, PM is consistent with other steps, allowing one discussion to be used throughout the process. Flatscan (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk page section
  • Merge templates on articles
  • Proposed mergers
  • Requesting outside input as described by dispute resolution, such as WP:3O, WikiProjects, and WP:RFC

For discussion of mergers actually on the page. The setup is inspired by AfD: each discussion has its own subpage that is transcluded to a log. A time limit was proposed but not implemented.

Previous discussions

• WT:Mergers for discussion, a few sections
• WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 63#Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion

Backlog

I think that the backlog has a substantial contribution from the delay in implementing mergers after consensus has been determined, which would be substantially identical between the two discussion processes. There are over 100 transclusions of {{afd-mergeto}}, which is placed when an AfD is closed as merge and removed when the article is redirected. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we archive the 2008 requests? VoltageX (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through them over the past few months, and there's only a few left. The ones still here are a little tricky, but all of them should actually be merged. I would rather see the work completed rather than brushed under the wikicarpet. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against archiving them. If the discussions are inactive or if there's a decision reached, close them. If they're active, contribute to them. As with any backlog, it's the oldest ones that need the most attention. Archiving is not a solution for this. Jafeluv (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]