Wikipedia talk:Merging

Promerge edit summary instructions

@FaviFake I'll add it to the PAM-AfD merge to-do list, we can get to it eventually. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of Template:Rcat

Under #Procedure, it says to use the following to convert the article into a redirect: #REDIRECT [[DESTINATIONPAGE]] {{Rcat|{{R from merge}}}}

This seems incorrect, since it doesn't actually categorize the article, doesn't display anything other than "This is a redirect", and the docs for Template:Rcat say "A metatemplate for redirect category templates. Don't transclude this template directly." Is it supposed to be Template:Rcat shell instead? RainbowtheDragonCat (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is supposed to be {{Rcat shell}}. Fixed. Warudo (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Judging by Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Rcat, a bunch of people have already followed the bad instructions. The RFC redirects are false positives because {{R from RFC}} uses {{Rcat}} but the rest are editors using rcat instead of {{Rcat shell}} and need fixing. Warudo (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind that, I took it to RfD instead. Warudo (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Question about undoing mergers that were completed

I've come across an interesting talk page where someone is advocating for undoing a page merger. As a new contributor, I am interested in how that process is supposed to play out. It appears there is no formal mechanism or procedure, unless I'm missing something? Sometimes these guides can be difficult to find, apologies if this is a stupid question. BrokenLegBay28 (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

That depends a little, do you know if the merger was performed BOLDLY or was there a discussion about the merge somewhere where consensus was found? You might need to go through WP:SPLIT. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Duplicate" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

"Wikipedia:M5" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:M5 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 20 § Wikipedia:M5 until a consensus is reached. Jay 17:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge discussions now at AfD

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 (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)

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)

Discussion at WP:VPPR § Should we disallow opening parallel RM and AfD discussions?

 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)