Wikipedia talk:Merging

The redirect Wikipedia:Duplicate has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 12 § Wikipedia:Duplicate until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I understand that merge proposals are now being redirected to AfD and re-defined as AfD discussions, and that the reason for this is that there is (or was) a backlog of merge proposals to be adjudged and a comparable backlog of mergers to be carried out.
Can I suggest that the new arrangement is hardly likely to resolve the issue, as it simply shifts the backlogs into the AfD forum; a better approach would (I suggest) be to deal with the matter here.
Firstly, merging pages isn’t (or shouldn’t be) an end in itself, but the solution to a defined set of problems; A number of merge proposals don’t meet these criteria, (being along the lines of “I think these two pages should be merged”) and should be closed (without prejudice) as having an improper foundation. The proposer should be messaged informing them, and told to review MERGEREASON and NOTMERGE if they want to try again.
Second, if the outcome of the discussion is for the pages to be merged, it shouldn’t be up to the closer to carry it out; a better response would (again) be to message the proposer and tell them to go ahead, after reviewing the guidance at HELP:MERGE. That way the problem of a merge backlog would be returned to the proposers, rather than left to the editors of this project. As an example I reviewed a sample of articles at Cat:Merge (all the “A”s, about 15 at the time, plus their reciprocals): about 6 could have been closed as having an insufficient rationale, and 4 could have been closed as merge (and batted back to the proposer); the whole process took about an hour. The current backlog is 192 proposals; with a sufficiently ruthless approach it would take less than 12 man(?person)/hours to clear (and in the spirit of this comment I'd have been happy to take part). Is there going to be review of this new initiative, to see if it's made things any better? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The problem is not with the simple cases; it is those where there is case, where there has been significant discussion, and were where there is no current consensus but the discussion is not yet stale. Having been working on clearing the back log down from 10,000 or so, 95% of cases are fast to resolve (on the scale of 2 months or so), but there are others that warrant more time to do properly. I entirely agree that the AfD route was a bad decision, against the advice of those of us actually involved in this project. Regarding coordinating backlog clearance, I don't think that anything more is needed. There is a list; feel free to get clearing it :) The approach you suggest is fine, but the barrier will be implementing those where this is consensus to merge. Many of these are complete and time-consuming to do well. It's one of the jobs I cycle around to from time to time (currently working on June AfD-merge closures, but I'll cycle back to the old end soon). Klbrain (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPPR § Should we disallow opening parallel RM and AfD discussions?. FaviFake (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC) FaviFake (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4 Kids Walk Into a Bank (film).

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4 Kids Walk Into a Bank (film) § Merging as an alternative to AfD?

 – This was intended as a mere notification but it immediately devolved into an identical discussion. I've left the notification on this talk page, but moved the contents of the discussion to AfD per WP:MULTI. FaviFake (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake How does it make sense to revert a maintenance tag for missing information with the edit summary that says "How hard is it to understand X?" when X is not written in the information page? Whether or not I know how we deal with these things is irrelevant, because it's an information page. It's supposed to be informative for editors who have no experience too.

Right now the page states that some non-article pages can be merged, and then it clearly states that merging is an outcome at 3 venues, which logically necessitates that article types handled at those venues are eligible for merging. The information page lets readers know that merging miscellaneous pages is allowed, that it is often done boldly, and that you cannot make a merge proposal at MfD but you can make a deletion proposal and have it end up as a merge. I can imagine at least three different conclusions that someone reading this page for the first time could come away with:

• The only option to merge miscellaneous pages is to do it boldly. Just go ahead.
• You can either do a bold merge or start a deletion discussion at MfD and pivot to being in favour of merging
• Both bold merges and merge discussions are okay, but for merge discussions editors must use ad hoc venues instead of MfD.

Just because you think it's obvious and makes sense doesn't mean other editors will see it that way. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 11:09, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I take this applies to this series of edits to this page: —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

First of all, maintenance tags are almost never used on projectspace pages because they don't work. I've seen many template documentations which have had a maintenance tags for a decade or more because nobody bothered to fix it.

I agree that the page is supposed to be informative for inexperienced editors.

The page states:

Any editor can perform a merge. If merging is obviously needed and is not controversial, editors are encouraged to be bold and simply do it themselves by following the merging instructions below. You do not need anyone's permission or prior discussion to proceed, especially if the merge satisfies one or more of the reasons to merge articles. While bold merges may be reverted entirely, the process and the discussion after the revert often result in better articles. [...] If you want to first gauge whether there is opposition to a potential merge or want to hear other editors' opinions before nominating the article, you can seek input through standard consensus-building venues, such as the destination article's talk page [...] Pages in certain other namespaces can also be merged, usually also on a bold basis, but merging on a consensus basis relies on different venues. [...] MfD ... does not accept merge nominations. You cannot formally propose merging a miscellaneous page into another page. However, a deletion discussion at that venue can yield "merge" as an alternative to deletion.

So both of the last two bullet points are correct. I don't think MfD editors would like you to intentionally mislead them about your intentions by initially proposing deletion and then pretending to change your mind, but there isn't any rule that says it's not allowed. It has simply never happened before, afaik.

Plus, the RfC for allowing merge nominations at MfD is currently at WP:CR, so we will get a clearer answer soon. Feel free to explain the current situation better, but an inline maintenance tag is just useless clutter. FaviFake (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I can accept that view. I also did not realize that RfC was still going, I didn't participate and had kind of just filed it away in my mind as history. I will update the guidance after the RfC closes. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 07:43, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Actually, looking at the March 2026 close for the AfD–PM merge, it makes no mention of miscellaneous pages being exempt from the merge. It just says PM and AfD are merged. I suppose that has to mean that current consensus is that AfD is a venue for miscellaneous mergers, despite it not operating that way. Editors in the RfC for merges at MfD seem to be overlooking that detail too.

Is it ridiculous to have miscellaneous mergers at AfD instead of MfD? Yes, but if editors wanted things to not be ridiculous they probably should have paid more attention to the facts in both of these discussions before making decisions. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 08:52, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

We can't and shouldn't read it that way. Sending these to AFD is something that could have been decided at the RFC or at a separate RFC. (I am not suggesting another RFC on this!) What's written here (which is broadly accepted, even if it's "just" an information page and not a guideline) is clear about what has been the practice for misc. pages. The entire discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 215#RfC: Merge nominations at MfD and the preceding discussion are premised on the fact that there is currently no official venue for these discussions. My understanding per the recent discussions is that misc. merge discussions rarely or never used the old PAM process. I'm not sure sending these to AFD is "overlooked" so much as assumed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Many editors are saying that we only now lack a venue for misc merges, and that PM was used for it before. It's clear that, at least occasionally, PM was used as the venue for misc mergers. If not "overlooked", how else would you describe this detail being left out of the the PM–AfD merge entirely?

Also how is it clear about what the practice for misc pages is? I just listed three options for interpreting it that are all reasonable (going by the perspective of a new editor, experienced editors certainly would not assume option 1 applies). I also don't see how the advice here (if you mean that its option 3) could be considered broadly accepted when PM was previously used for misc merges, and nobody said get rid of misc merge discussions. – Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 18:32, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I really think it would be best if we all stopped discussing this, at least until the MfD RfC is closed. Nothing will come out of this discussion and we will get an official answer soon. FaviFake (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Took the words right out of my mouth. – Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 18:37, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. There's plenty I we could all say but there's little sense at this time. The RFC close will either address these issues or clarify what's left undecided. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also upon reflection this is kind of getting off-topic: the point was that clearly this whole thing was poorly thought-out. Nobody intended for AfD to be a venue for misc merges and nobody intended for misc merges to be impossible to discuss. Neither of those things should be put in the guideline. What I wanted in the first place was for one of those three options (or two I guess, obviously not option 1) to be clearly stated on the information page. – Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 18:37, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is it ridiculous to have miscellaneous mergers at AfD instead of MfD?
It's not ridiculous, but if you try to do that everyone will be mad at you and the discussion would be speedily closed per the WP:SK guideline: (emphasis in original) If a page is nominated on the wrong forum (for example, a template on AfD or an article on MfD), the misplaced discussion may be procedurally closed [...]. FaviFake (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I mean I think it's ridiculous, but that it shouldn't be procedurally closed as it's technically not the wrong forum. That said, yeah, I think everyone would be mad at me and that it would be a rather WP:POINTy thing to do. – Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 18:34, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Returning to the original point of this discussion, I think the current wording is fine for now. It's worth confirming or revisiting after the RFC closes. There are a number of areas on Wikipedia where there is no consensus or a lack of clarity about how to handle a particular situation or an apparent gap in processes. As a general matter, I think guidelines, information pages, etc. should state this plainly. In that way, the written guidance, advice, or information can be a complete description even while the underlying issue or process is incompletely resolved. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Discussion has closed with no consensus, in part due to the possibility of using alternative means of publicizing discussion. I have updated the page to reflect this, informing editors that misc merges are practically speaking the Wild West, until consensus can be formed on a specific way they should be handled. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 13:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, @Maltazarian. I support the now-current wording. It is an accurate description of the current state of play. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

How should the Afd-merge template documentation be handled in a situation where a discussion closes as 'merge' but an editor makes the editorial judgment to blank and redirect, with no merger taking place? This is the situation with Bigfoot following the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Dyer (hoaxer). The {{afd-merged-from}} template at Talk:Bigfoot now erroneously says that a merger was carried out on October 17. Is there a proper way to indicate that a redirect exists with history that *may* include usable content, but that no merger has occurred?

Setting aside the question of whether this should occur, the documentation should be correct. There is an important distinction between a discussion being closed as 'merge' and actually merging content. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to update the doc. The point of that template is to let users know that this article should not be deleted because it has history. If it can be deleted, then the template can be removed, but in 95% of cases it isn't.

Although, it does serve an interesting service, pointing the user to an otherwise hidden AfD discussion. idk.

But it's not like people are going to manually remove it based on what the doc says. FaviFake (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I guess I'm wondering if the old version of the template should be reinstated on the talk page, and if it can be tagged so the bot doesn't remove it. In theory this shouldn't be a common situation so I'm not necessarily wanting to add any instruction that might be seen as encouraging this situation. I mostly encounter this with older AFD discussions or a bold WP:BLAR where there was no merge/redirect/delete discussion, in which case I simply remove {{R from merge}} and, depending on the situation, add a note to the talk page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

it can be tagged so the bot doesn't remove it
It cannot, and if you did do it, it would show up at the WP:MERGEREPORT. Maybe you can use {{Old merge}}? FaviFake (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

(On the topic of WP:MERGEREPORT, where do you think it should be moved? I was thinking WP:Merging/Report could be good, but WP:WikiProject Merge/Report doesn't sound bad either. FaviFake (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Eh, {{Old merge}} is designed to go on the talk page of the redirect/page to be merged, not the merge target. I'm not terribly surprised there is no standard way to record this so I can just leave it alone.

I wasn't familiar with WP:MERGEREPORT but the most straightforward page to move it to would be Wikipedia:Merge report. Your other suggestions seem fine but if it doesn't clearly "belong" to one page or another then it probably doesn't make sense to make it a subpage. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Good idea! I'll do this tomorrow!

This is completely unrelated, but since you always have good and thoughtful opinions, I was curious if you had one on the new TWAFI section of the Main Page. FaviFake (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was unaware of this WP:TWAFI Main Page experiment! Taking a look at it now. I see some discussion on the article talk page; I assume general thoughts/concerns/input on this should go at WT:AFI. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

You are correct! It was implemented after this RfC. Many people hate its placement (see WT:MAIN and WP:VPI, for example) so we'll need to create an RfC in the next few weeks to decide whether it should be moved FaviFake (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I think I found your answer. In Wikipedia:Merge report § The nominated article was deleted, it says:

The following table lists deleted pages that were referred to by the {{Afd-merge from}} template as a result of an AfD discussion. The offending {{Afd-merge from}} has already been removed [by the bot] [...]

I guess this implies that pages where the merge didn't happen should have their template removed. FaviFake (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Good find! Yeah, I think the second bullet implies this:

If the article was not merged (for example if the merging editor noticed the same content was already at the destination article), or the merged material was so little as not to be protected by copyright, then the row from the table should simply be removed.

I will remove the banner from Talk:Bigfoot. This makes the most sense to me, rather than retaining a banner that incorrectly states that a merge actually occurred. Thanks! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

In the reasons not to merge section the criterion "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short" (which had been there for years) was deleted (in November 2024), without any discussion here that I can see. The edit summary stated "seems to conflict with WP:PAGEDECIDE" As I can’t see anything at PAGEDECIDE that this conflicts with, and it seems a good safeguard against frivolous merge proposals, I have restored it. If anyone thinks we shouldn’t have this criterion in the NOMERGE section, perhaps they could explain why (and maybe get some agreement on the matter)? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Pinging the remover @Theleekycauldron. I agree that it conflicts with PAGEDECIDE, and even a bit with SHORTTEXT. WP:PAGEDECIDE says: What sourcing is available now? Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. FaviFake (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I stand by that removal. This is an info page, so it is subordinate to policy and guideline, and NOPAGE is very clear that a topic simply being notable is not enough to avoid a merge:

When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic

And like FaviFake says above, an article being very short and not expandable is a decent case for merging it under the third bullet (or at the very least, an article being quite long can be a mark against merging). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:47, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

NOPAGE here is giving a double negative, which is a very poor way to give guidance, and it does it under the section title “Whether to create …”.

Some simple direct language on reasons to merge, followed by counter reasons, as we have here at WP:MERGEREASON, is better. I think NOPAGE is essay, not guideline.

MERGEREASON has too many too early LINKBOX SHORTCUTS, I think six should be removed, for now. They hinder text improvement.
I think the current NOMERGE#5, Insufficient notability, needs a beating into something better. Wikipedia-notability is barely well defined as a binary yes/no. To my simple reading, what is currently implied is that sufficient notability is a reason to not merge. This is a big problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@SmokeyJoe: I think NOPAGE is essay, not guideline. That is flatly incorrect. NOPAGE and PAGEDECIDE are the same thing, and they are both guideline, same as the rest of WP:N. I also don't see what double negative you're referring to, but it does not matter; NOPAGE is clear and it supersedes MERGEREASON. Feel free to start a discussion on WT:N if you think the guideline should be changed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:17, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you know about writing instructions? Direct? Actionable? Can you really not find the double negative? You need to look for why the text is being misread. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

How would you reword it? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:22, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

How would I reword Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages? I wouldn’t, and not from here anyway. It is a nicely written essay section that helps explain the scope of WP:N. But one should recognise that it is not written as guidance for when to merge, and it should not be relied upon as such.
I support rewrite of Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons to merge articles, as per my words above. I think that this page, when rewritten to be more on point, objective and actionable, Wikipedia:Merging, should be retagged as {{guideline}}. I came to this opinion having reviewed these pages following review of some difficult AfD merge discussions, where I think a tightening of the language around level of notability and merge reasons would be helpful. I do not think WP:N should be changed to define levels of notability, but instead, merge reasons should be written without explicitly referring or deferring to Wikipedia-notability. But I am late to following User:FaviFake‘s reforms to merging, and am keen to read his response. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

So if I got this right, you think a section of Wikipedia: Notability is secretly an essay and should not be considered part of a guideline, while a how-to page on how to carry out a merge should be promoted to guideline instead? What?

Also, I have absolutely no idea what "my reform to merging" is supposed to mean. I've always opposed the proposal to merge PAM into AfD, and I still think it was a bad idea, for all the reasons I and others stated in the RfC. I'm only helping out on the implementation to avoid it becoming even more of a mess than it is now. FaviFake (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Secretly? No. It’s plainly in the writing. A guideline tells you what to do, or how to decide. An essay tells you why. Some people take the taggery too seriously.
Well, when to merge, or not, is a missing guideline. MERGEREASON is close.
You opposed merging PAM into AfD? Whoa, I got that wrong. Sorry. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

(If you think that the AFD+merge decision was fundamentally the wrong decision, then you might want to consider whether not helping out with the implementation would be better in the end. It would create a mess, but that would probably be a temporary mess, followed by a decision to do something better.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

? Fundamentally wrong? No.
Help with implementation? I think improving Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons to merge articles is a good idea. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

My comment is in response to Favi's statement that I'm only helping out on the implementation to avoid it becoming even more of a mess than it is now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that improving Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons to merge articles would require admitting that short articles are acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that short articles on microorganisms are well accepted, while short articles on the staff of companies are not.
I think that MERGEREASON#2 “overlap” is the most important consideration, considering that it encompasses “duplicate” and “context”.
I don’t think that “short text” is even important, exclusive of “overlap” consideration. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill (4th nomination) proves that a lot of text is not a good reason to not merge.
What I find interesting is how to address the current “notability” reference. I think it can be removed, to be replaced by non-Wikipedia-jargon words, like ongoing coverage not primarily covering an overlapping other topic. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Coverage primarily covering an overlapping topic (e.g., the CEO + the business he runs) is IMO a good reason for a merge.

Microorganisms aren't a good example, as many of them are merged up to the genus level (e.g., Cronobacter). But more generally, the community accepts short articles on extant/non-extinct species.

However, the reason that this matters is because for other subject areas, particularly for anything that relates to WP:NCORP, we actually do see editors arguing at AFD that the article should be deleted or merged away because it's too short for their tastes. See, e.g.,:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discovery Kids (British and Irish TV channel): "I propose merging to [other article] because article is too short"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Testicular trauma: "Article is too short, and there are only 2 citations"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Per Erik Hedman (2nd nomination): "This page is too short for even a stub page....If this article is expanded we could keep it, but for now it's far too short."
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinia (moon): "it'd logically be a standalone, however I think that 3 paragraphs is really too short it'd be nice to merge it into [other article]"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KDesktop: "I propose merging to [other article] because the article is too short and lacks notability"

All of these are from this year. There are plenty more like these. If short articles are accepted, then why do so many newer and less experienced noms turn up at AFD saying that the main problem with the article is that it's too short, and that being too short is a reason to delete or merge away a page?

I think that part of the answer to that question is that this guideline stopped telling them that being too short is not inherently a problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

“ I think that part of the answer to that question is that this guideline stopped telling them that being too short is not inherently a problem”?

“Short text” or “ Text – If a page is very short” has been in this guideline for a very long time.

I think that part of the answer is for this guideline to stop talking about short text.

Microorganisms. I was assuming extant. When someone discovers a new looking fungus in a strange place, it’s welcome to a new stub until sources connect it to something broader. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The idea that being short is not a sufficient and/or always applicable justification for merging has indeed been in this guideline for a very long time. This page was created in 2009, and the very first version said that "Merging should be not be considered if: [...]The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short".

This statement was removed 15 years later, without discussion. I think it'd be better to say that being permanently short may or may not be a valid reason. Would you prefer saying nothing at all about being short? I'm concerned that a lacuna would lead to editors simply assuming that short = bad, and therefore the silence of the page on this point means support for merging away shorter articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The third bullet also says that being a permastub is not always a sensible reason to merge. It’s don’t think #3 is worthy of being at the same level as #1 or #2. And #4 belongs inside #2. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Again, feel free to start a discussion to change WP:N if you'd like. Right now, the question is whether this statement:

Merging should be avoided if ... [t]he topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short.

is consistent with PAGEDECIDE. It is not, whether or not that guidance is immediately clear or in line with what you think guideline should be. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:24, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think the OP has raised a valid issue, but I don’t think they have hit the root of the problem. I do not think there is a problem of consistency with PAGEDECIDE. I think PAGEDECIDE allows for this page to provide its own guidance, but without couching concepts as deriving from WP:N. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't conflict with PAGEDECIDE. Something can be avoided even if it is possible to do it at times as well. Katzrockso (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to mark up the section of NOPAGE you selected and compare it with the NOMERGE section:

When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic

NOMERGE:

Merging should be avoided if: [...] The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short.

I see these two statements as essentially expressing the same thing, though the emphasis is a little different. Katzrockso (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Even if we assumed they didn't contradict each other, then why would we want to keep two statements that essentially express the same thing in two different pages, if one is essentially a one-sentence summary of entire section and needs its context in order to be understood? FaviFake (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Katzrockso below that, if anything, perhaps NOMERGE should be expanded (modestly) and clarified. I generally think we should limit duplication on guidelines and pages that serve similar functions, like this one. But the page on merging would be incomplete without mentioning this important reason to not merge. The page on merging is a better place to expand or clarify, without contradicting NOPAGE, this merge consideration. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The page on merging will always be incomplete unless you transclude most of WP:NOPAGE. You can't just hope to summarise a 5-paragraph guideline without losing the nuance. Which is why the other point that refers to a guideline (#1) simply links to it.

If you summarise PAGEDECIDE in a few sentences, editors will cite the summary as a reason to merge, and other editors will tell them it's just an information page that cannot override the guidelines on notability, etc etc, until they'll discover the actual guideline.

I don't like NOMERGE #1 either because people regularly point at it as a reason to merge, but at least the SIZERULE isn't as nuanced as PAGEDECIDE. I propose we transclude WP:RCF, WP:SIZERULE, and WP:PAGEDECIDE into this page so we can stop debating how a page that is referenced as if it were a guideline should summarise actual guidelines. FaviFake (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm sympathetic to the problem but I don't think blowing up the size of this page, which benefits from being fairly concise and easy to follow, is a good solution. NOMERGE #3 could be improved by directly linking to the target of WP:NOPAGE. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

No it can't, it will just be quoted word-for-word even with a link, just like #1.

We can move the reasons to merge below § Procedure, since the instructions are much smaller than when the section for reasons to merge was created. Or we can keep it there, and transclude all three. They're not that long and they're super relevant to the act of merging, which is most often done boldly. We need a place to show the three actual guidelines about merging in one place. This page is not supposed to be just an info page to reference at AfD, it needs to be used by first-time bold-mergists as well. FaviFake (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

This page is not supposed to be just an info page to reference at AfD, it needs to be used by first-time bold-mergists as well. Retaining WP:NOMERGE and not bloating it is also consistent with this purpose. It is arguably more important to highlight basic merge considerations for first-time bold mergists. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sure. I'm proposing we do both: keep the inevitably incomplete summaries and give more info to readers who want more than just a summary but can't be bothered to open three other pages just for a few paragraphs of immensely relevant text. FaviFake (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

§ Reasons to merge articles should still remain before § Procedure and should remain relatively concise, with appropriate links. There will always be editors who skip, skim, or selectively quote important sections. Adding a lot more text to the page only makes it more likely that editors don't read or understand it. The page should be organized in a way that does not encourage editors proceed exactly to the 'how' without first considering 'when' and 'why'. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The answer to why would we want to keep two statements that essentially express the same thing in two different pages is: Because people often only read one page, so you have to put information in multiple places. When "context" is needed to understand something, then it should link to the main section (e.g., "See WP:UPPERCASE for more information"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree, and I hope you will also agree that asking editors to read five pages, including four sections from pages other than the one they're currently reading, is less desirable than transcluding those same sections in § Guidelines on merging with hatnotes that allow them to reach all four pages in full.

(Also, note that linking to WP:THIS is not allowed per WP:SCJARGON, you would use {{Section link}} for that.) FaviFake (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Section links have a tendency to break over time. It's better to use the shortcut for the link, even if you put something else as the visible text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sure, but WP:TARGET is usually enforced pretty well on policy pages. FaviFake (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't like section transclusions; they often don't make sense (or they make sense when they're set up, but then the original gets changed and they stop making sense). I think a short summary and a clear link usually makes more sense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agree —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I monitor this page pretty actively, and I'll definitely use this new section for when I need to reread a few merge policies (for example, I had completely forgotten that WP:RCF said the oldest article should be the target), so I'll make sure it remains just as understandable as it is now, especially thanks to each subsection having a clear title about what it covers.

I remain strongly convinced that attempting to summarise four policies on a page that is already being misquoted as a policy, and expecting the user to click 4 links and read 4 different sections on 4 pages rather than a few simple transcluded paragraphs is a terrible user experience. FaviFake (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

• I monitor this page pretty actively – To stop this problem, you'd have to monitor this page plus the four you want to transclude from, and probably go beyond "monitoring" towards "controlling". And if anyone wants to make a change, they'll have difficulty doing so. There's a similar problem with wrapping sentences in {{vanchor}} or similar templates: every change breaks something elsewhere. We should use simpler formatting when we can.
• attempting to summarise four policies – So let's not. Let's provide the most commonly needed information and a link and then stop.
• a page that is already being misquoted as a policy – I've been seeing newer editors make a distinction between policy and an official {{policy}}; therefore, if someone says that such-and-such is our policy, they don't necessarily mean to communicate the page's status (but only to say that it's the usual practice of the community).
• expecting the user to click 4 links and read 4 different sections on 4 pages – I'm not. I'm expecting them to not need any of this (because this page will have the most common information right here), or to need a maximum of one (because the user will be able to find the one that's relevant).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that being a discrete topic is a reason not to merge.

I don't agree that it is always a compelling reason not to merge.

Are editors interpreting this too strictly? Is there a sense that if it says "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short", then you must not merge the page? The correct/intended interpretation is closer to "Here's a valid reason, but it's equally valid to do the opposite".

Both of these are true:

• There are several good reasons to merge pages: [...] If an article is short and, in your opinion as editor, is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it into the article on the broader topic.
• Merging should be avoided if: [...] The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short.

They balance each other; people must use their best Wikipedia:Editorial judgment to decide which one is more appropriate for a given circumstance.

For example, articles about individual species tend to avoid merges, even when the articles are very short, but short articles about companies tend to be merged up to parent companies, successors, CEO biographies, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't see this as contradicting nor duplicating PAGEDECIDE (aka NOPAGE). I agree with WAID above that these balance one another and that the determination of how close/distant two subject are is a matter of editorial judgment. If two pages are distantly related or the relationship is unclear, they should not be merged just to avoid having one or more permastubs. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that section of WP:NOMERGE should be restored, though we should clarify it. Simply because more than one topic can be covered at one page doesn't mean they should be. We presume that notable topics warrant standalone articles (definition of notability), but that doesn't mean they always should receive standalone articles.

I think the presumption aspect of notability has been often forgotten in the merge discussion - by definition, if a topic is notable it is presumed to merit a standalone article. Not simply some coverage in the annals of Wikipedia somewhere or a brief mention on a list, but a standalone article. This presumption is rebuttable, of course, and ultimately comes down to some editorial discretion and the interaction with other policies and guidelines, but the starting position for a notable topic is always that it warrants a standalone article. Katzrockso (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Katzrockso: that is specifically not the case. See the WP:PAGEDECIDE arguments made above. Klbrain (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Klbrain I don't understand your comment. I am not disagreeing with PAGEDECIDE, but emphasizing the often ignored parts of WP:N:

notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article

and

topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)

Emphasis mine. Katzrockso (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply