Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3; 4;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Merge and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 3 months

NOTE: To Make a formal Merge Request; please go to the Proposed Article Mergers page
Individual article merge discussions SHOULD NOT be started on this page.

seeking wider input on a potential merge

Sketchfab into Fab (website) Arlo James Barnes 19:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I closed it as stale with no case made; see Talk:Sketchfab#merge with Fab (website)?; there was also no support. Klbrain (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merged-from template use

It seems to me, the purpose of {{afd-merged-from}} is licensing-required attribution of merged content. Is that correct? If then, an AFD was closed as a merger decision, but in the end, nothing was merged but instead merely redirected, is that template still the appropriate one to use? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; I wouldn't use it for a redirect. Klbrain (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottie McClue

Someone has merged the Scottie McClue Colin Lamont pages they have been separated for years very confusing for fans 😳 2A00:23C8:1EA1:A601:983A:C2FF:FE8A:4FFA (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to refer to Colin Lamont. Visit Talk:Colin_Lamont#One_article/two_articles, read it, keep scrolling down and read some more. You could add comments on that page, if you think they haven't been covered enough already. Commander Keane (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that someone ('twas me!) merged them, back in 2019 ... it looks like fans haven't been that concerned over the last 5 years. The merge was back in 2019 following a 2017 merge discussion. Klbrain (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or blank-and-redirect?

According to the discussion here, there is consensus that the Action of 1 February 1625 and the Battle off Hormuz (1625) are in fact about the same naval battle. Some editors are in favour of a blank-and-redirect instead of a merge. What is the right approach and how should the discussion be closed? Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the discussion; the difference is simply the retention of a specific section, which can be resolved in later discussion if someone really does object. Felix QW (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]