I propose merging Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip into Gaza WarGaza war as the invasion page is not needed given the Gaza war page covers it so it is redundant. GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants from the discussion on the Gaza war page @Chicdat @Jamie Eilat @Metallurgist @JulDer Wiki . GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just to note I accidentally added a capital w to the war but the article I am proposing to merge too is spelt Gaza war(not sure if I am allowed to correct typos in the merge proposal.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support - Makes adding new information very very confusing, pages are practically identical. JaxsonR (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, a lot of false or alleged information goes unnoticed within this page such as the PA supporting the Popular Forces, there is no proof other than the Popular Forces proclaiming this. JaxsonR (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You can definitely correct a typo. Happens all the time. Metallurgist (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks GothicGolem29 (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And you don’t need to note it if you want! FaviFake (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mean I don't need to note the error in the page merge name? GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't need to let us know you've fixed it, yes. FaviFake (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks(though I will note I didn't actually note that I fixed it the note was before I fixed it as I wasn't sure if I was allowed too.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @GothicGolem29 See WP:TPG for more. FaviFake (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Where does it mention this in there? In the editing own comments section it mainly just talks about removal rather than noting an error in a merge request. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A merge discussion is a discussion like any other (except that it may be closed at some point).

  I found it at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Examples of appropriately editing others' comments in the fixing links section. It stands to reason that, if it is appropriate to edit a comment made by someone else, you can make the same edits on your own comments! FaviFake (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok thanks. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support per redundant Shubhsamant09 (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To effectively restate here what I wrote in corresponding discussion at Talk:Gaza war#Merge Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip into here?: the sections chronologically covering the invasion should definitely be merged with the corresponding Timeline of the Gaza war articles due to their WP:PROSELINE nature. And for the other sections (i.e. "Casualties", "Strategy", "Charges of war crimes", "Reactions"), material from them may potentially be better merged into other spinoff articles of the main topic (e.g. Casualties of the Gaza war, War crimes in the Gaza war, International reactions to the Gaza war) rather than necessarily merging into the main Gaza war article. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, I think the discussion is supposed to be on the target page, but I dont think thats 100% required, just preferred. It would be more of a mess to redo it. Metallurgist (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh apologies hopefully it is fine to coninue with this one rather than restarting. GothicGolem29 (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We usually don't procedurally restart discussions, we just move them. See Wikipedia:Merging § Step 1: Create a discussion. However, it is unncecessary in this case. FaviFake (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok thanks glad that deleting it isn't usually deleted moving makes much more sense(and I agree it isn't necessary right now.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. You may be interest in § Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy! FaviFake (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Ahammed Saad (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support removes redundancy. Rager7 (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 23:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Doing this would create less confusion; unnecessary stand alone article... ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 03:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose The Gaza War article is already at around 15,000 words, per WP:SIZERULE. This article received about 60,000 views last month. Merging it without significant trimming would inevitably mean losing important information. While AI tools can still access the content in this article, we should ensure that no information is lost in the process. Cinaroot (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinaroot The pages are almost identical though. JaxsonR (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cinaroot I kind of agree. But I still pick support. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's the major part of the war (as the article say). keeping them apart is redundant. TaBaZzz (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Not necessary to have two articles with so much overlapping information. Lova Falk (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Oppose- do not merge all these details nor change Gaza article structure - Both merge or not are reasonable choices. Do not merge without discussing what 'merge' means in more detail -- what is going to be merged in or cut and where it goes.

Definately do not merge all the local details, particularly not all those day-by-day tidbits. It does seem desirable to have the invasion covered within the Gaza War article but if detailed content is going to be kept about just this area of events then it should stay as a separate article. I can also see it as good to have detailed coverage specifically about this theater as a separate article, and would regret losing that focus and material. If the merge edit avoids including all the duplicative material and drops about 70 to 95% of the daily items - that would seem a minimum start of what does not merge in. (A whole subsection for 'May 28 The IDF captures the main roundabout of Rafah' is just too detailed for Gaza war but fine for a separate Invasion article. Ditto a whole subsection for '6 April - four IDF soldiers were killed in an ambush' and so on for most of the day-by-day details of just the strip.)

I also think that keeping the Gaza War subsections unchanged and any material that does not fit those topics does not get merged in would mean dropping the sections here of Casualties, Strategy, and Reactions. Gaza war does not have such sections and content here is limited scope to just the strip.

Finally, the Charges of War Crimes section would seem better moved to the War crimes in the Gaza war article than merged here, with no content here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mergers for these kinds of articles are usually very selective. FaviFake (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both articles are too large. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t even know how the mergers will do this. They are not the editors of these articles. They wouldn’t know what’s in one article and what’s in the other. They would have to read everything from A-Z to figure out how to merge it. Cinaroot (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what they are supposed to do all the time? JaxsonR (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn’t know what’s in one article and what’s in the other.

Yes they would. read[ing] everything from A-Z to figure out how to merge it is their job. Besides, any editor, even you or me, can merge these once the discussion is over. FaviFake (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose: Like what others said above, both articles are too large to be merged with. Although, both articles have some identical content so I'm dropping it down to "Weak Oppose". Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you think, even after the duplicated content is removed, they would still be too large, is that correct? FaviFake (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Gaza war has 14,636 words in the article. I think that if a merger happens, the article may exceed 15,000 words, even if duplicate content is removed. And at that point, a merger is recommended. See WP:SIZERULE. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 18:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And at that point, a merger is recommended.
you mean a split? FaviFake (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, misspelled. My bad. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Overlapping content justifies merge. Concerns about length of primary article should be addressed by proper editing of that article rather than retaining an article with significant duplication. Coining (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• That's actually a great point. If two articles overlap too much, the solution is not to keep them separate, but rather improve the whole article. FaviFake (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Coining I strongly agree with you. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 21:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Over 99% of the war (besides spillovers to the Red Sea, Lebanon, etc.) has consisted of the invasion, the initial October 7 attacks should have their own article but not this. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. This is a :CAT:SUBTOPIC. --MikutoH ^talk! 03:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose obvious hard WP:POVFORK with distinct and separate subject matter, sources, and background and context. Merging this, while it does bring all the boys to the yard with some senseless pile-on !votes, is not supported by any policy or guidelines on Wikipedia. Full oppose of any merge. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It seems to be a completely redundant duplicate page with no meaningful difference in the subject matter. The only problem is that both are very large articles, so it would take a very large amount of effort to carefully read though both of them to make sure no info would get lost. The articles are like 90+% redundant with some sources/pictures/quotes/stories present on only one of them. GMRE (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the articles are way to big, Gaza war is 492,199 bytes and Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip is 339,239 bytes. Catfurball (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose per WP:ARTICLESIZE as this would by default violate editing guidelines. Gaza war is currently 14.7K and Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip is 12.1K words. Per WP:SIZERULE, >15K "should be divided or trimmed" so at 26.8K this is borderline obscene. This isn't so different to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russo-Ukrainian war, or Invasion of Poland and WWII, for the same reason that the invasion is often a standalone article iwithin the context of the broader war. It's by no means a POVFORK. CNC (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support the information in this article is repetitive and as a stand alone article it lacks the broader context necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the invasion... ~(talk) 08:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose thanks to the decision of editors here, the Gaza war article and devices accessing the article have crashed. Borgenland (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Borgenland the GazaWar article is big, but on my laptop, it isn't that laggy, just takes some time to load. This discussion is a mess now, so I am neutral. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 15:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a laptop and unfortunately mine crashed twice. I don't want to speculate on the model but it is clear that the merger is a serious issue that should have been thought of more carefully. Borgenland (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It took three attempts to restore the article to pre-merge format for reference, it crashed twice before then. Definitely too big, no doubt about that one. CNC (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Borgenland and @CommunityNotesContributor yeah maybe this all was a mistake. I am not sure though. I don't really participate in mergers. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 15:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is fair to blame editors who voted support for that as A the close was reverted and B it just is not helpful in my view. If you want to oppose based crashing thats fine but I don't agree with saying thanks to editors decision part of your !vote GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost nobody here !voted to perform the merger as it was done. FaviFake (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the issue less with the decision of editors here but rather the inartful and improper closure/implementation of the merge discussion by a non-admin editor? Any merger that's done shouldn't be a wholesale cut and paste, as was seemingly attempted. Coining (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. FaviFake (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose The merged article, before the merge was reverted, exceeded the WP:PEIS limit and would not render correctly. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  the article was copy pasted, not merged properly, by an unexperienced editor. FaviFake (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: The Gaza War page, considering how current and extensive it is, within Wikipedia and within the world, is already too big of an article, and it would be best if the main page splits up instead (especially the "War in Israel and Gaza" section, which is the largest out of all the sections on that page by a landslide). — Alex26337 ^(talk) 06:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am Palestinian and I STRONGLY AGREE. This is one war. I came to this page, because this is was linked to it. Specifically, the Miss Universe Palestine matter, links to this. This creates a false representation, suggesting the totality of the matter is that Israel invaded Gaza. In other words contextually, X was impacted because "Israel invaded Gaza". In this case, the X is "The Miss Universe Pageant". Now, let me be clear, the pageant was not held in Gaza (nor was it in Israel). So there Israel's military presence or invasion or whatever you want to call it, doesn't have an impact. One could say that the larger war might. Not getting into the claim of the impact of the war, the issue is that this article is being used, in place of the war. When it is being used in place of the war. It dismisses all the context of the war. Sfdoctorp (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The page by itself is far too large to merge, and the target page for the merger is far too large to contain it, and the content here is RS and distinct from the other. Where there are significant overlaps, the general Gaza War page should be shortened with a link to this one. -Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: this discussion needs closing! FaviFake (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it has already been listed on the closure requests by someone so hopefully it will be closed soon. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I listed it a month ago and nobody did... FaviFake (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realise it was you thanks for that hopefully someone will soon. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]