Jump to content

Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers/Archive 2021

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Requests answered in December 2021
Support WP:TOOSOON. --Muhandes (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Requests answered in November 2021
Requests answered in October 2021
Requests answered in September 2021
  • Merge: I propose merging Tuskegee Syphilis Study (71k, B class), Guatemala syphilis experiments (26k), and Terre Haute prison experiments (2k) as United States Public Health Service Syphilis Studies. The primary reason is to more appropriately name the articles for the funding, initiating, controlling party. Separating into three articles, each with location as the first word inappropriately obscures the driving party in all three cases, and connections between the three cases. In the seminal informed consent cases of Auschwitz and Buchenwald, the reference names identify compounds erected or seized explicitly for inhumane purposes -- so using those names besmirches no good deeds. Moreover, Auschwitz and Buchenwald are now closed memorials. Though local governance failed to protect their charges from PHS abuse, PHS was the controlling actor, and earned the title role. Wikipedia should not continue with titles that invite misinterpretation. COVID-19 makes 2021 an especially bad time to highlight PHS errors. Still, we Wikipedians face a recurring challenge: Where the most common phrasing distorts the known history by misreporting agency, highlighting minor parties instead of major/controlling parties -- should we continue to reinforce that distortion because it's common/popular? While merging would make a long article, it would be far from our longest. Bringing the articles together could better convey the connected nature of the events and improve overall reader understanding. The articles should be merged and renamed -- even if we postpone publishing the revision for some agreed interval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:LoneStarNot (talkcontribs)
Requests answered in August 2021
  • Merge: Third Oli cabinet to Second Oli cabinet: Second oli cabinet and Third oli cabinet are not different and the only difference is they come under second premiership and third premiership respectively as mentioned above. So a section for third premiership in same article, Second Oli cabinet can address both. Even the national medias term this as cabinet reshuffle. Can you deny this? It can be termed as second term of same cabinet as all the ministers remained same and same ministers took oath. Even their article suggest no Third Oli cabinet! Can you deny this? Fifth Deuba Cabinet, 2021 mentions it's preceded by Second Oli cabinet. Second Oli cabinet says it's succeeded by Fifth Deuba Cabinet, 2021. Isn't it? Except this article, you may not find this awkward topic, Third Oli cabinet any where. 43.245.86.16 (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please find the concensus required and reference in the talk page of both articles. Visit and comment at Talk:Second Oli cabinet. 110.44.127.181 (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done: Not enough participation in discussion to change anything as they now stand. Proposer, 43.245.86.16 may consider taking the subject article to AFD. GenQuest "scribble" 13:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Requests answered in July 2021
Requests answered in June 2021
Requests answered in May 2021
 Done GenQuest "scribble" 06:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Requests answered in April 2021
  • Merging Púca and Puck (mythology) now Puck (folklore)
    • I was going to work on the Púca page (well, the french version, but not the point). Problem, starting my work by looking at what exist in english, I noticed that there is already a Puck (mythology) page that refers to the same creature! Yes, there are pages in English for BOTH terms, pages translated in both cases in many languages ​​... BUT the Puck (mythology) page uses Puck or Púca indifferently for these creatures, ditto for the Púca page, the two terms are entirely synonymous and describe the same creature, there are just variations in the writing according to the regions, indicated on both pages (Pooka, Phouka, Pwca, etc.) and a common Celtic origin, both pages giving more or less the same information, just formulated differently, as well as most of the same examples in popular culture (a true tomayto-tomahto case). If some other creatures (I mean those with a common ancestry) have evolved into different creatures or at least with enough specificities to be considered as such (Poulpiquet, Pixie, Bucca), a bit like different "species" or "subspecies", this is not the case between Puck and Púca, treated as identical. The two should be merged and a redirect link put on Púca. Oh, Shakespeare's Puck, inspired (as said on BOTH pages) by the creature, has its own page (justified, as he is a specific Puck / Púca, I just wanted to clarify that none of the pages are about him -or when they are, they are equally so). --Zeynel (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles are tagged and are awaiting a merger discussion. Ongoing discussion is >>>HERE<<<. GenQuest "scribble" 12:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: There is resistance to this being expressed at the talk-page discussion, possibly due to the original, ill-formed request. Discussion area has been re-factored and we are now awaiting any further imput. GenQuest "scribble" 15:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
       Not done closed: No Merge. GenQuest "scribble" 21:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Requests answered in March 2021
 Done Closed as: "Proceed" with partial merge and redirect. GenQuest "scribble" 15:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  checkY Merger complete. GenQuest "scribble" 15:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: Closed as "Merge." No interest shown in opposing this merge. Proposer, SMcCandlish, or other interested editor, can proceed with a standard merge. GenQuest "scribble" 12:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Closed as "Merge." Proposer, Hemiauchenia or other interested editor should do the work. GenQuest "scribble" 12:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done This has been worked out locally and can be closed as "Merge"; proposar, Historyday01 should follow his proposed plan and proceed with the merge(s) as described in the discussion. Good luck, GenQuest "scribble" 12:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, GenQuest, I wasn't aware the discussion was closed yet... I didn't think there was a consensus for merge yet, but that was just my thoughts. Historyday01 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  checkY Merger complete. by interested editor. GenQuest "scribble" 12:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to do the merge as soon as I can... Sorry for dragging my feet for this long. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Requests answered in February 2021
  • Merge: I propose that the Sandnes (city) page should be merged into the Sandnes page. Anything related to the city should instead be a part of the article about the municipality. This is how the article about Stavanger is structured, and I don't know why these neighboring municipalities are structured in a different way. In addition, the wiki page about Oslo is also structured similar to the page about Stavanger. Most people will only read the page about the municipality, and because of that — the city article will become outdated. The article about the municipality is what appears when searching for Sandnes on Google and Google Maps. A similar thing should also be done on the Norwegian Wikipedia, and the page about the munincipality should be written to resemble the Stavanger page. Additionally, two pages for one historical place might be confusing for readers. Makkkkus
Requests answered in January 2021