Proposed article mergers is anoticeboard for active discussions to merge articles. To begin a new merge discussion, follow the instructions atWikipedia:Merging. If a merge is unlikely to be contested, you canbe bold and complete it without initiating a discussion. If your merge is later contested, another editor canrevert and discuss it.
Thank you for your comment,Fionn Kivlehan-Hayes:A. I have removed the section on deputy LGBTQ+ heads of government. Such a section is out of place for an article titledList of openly LGBT ... heads of government, as those leaders are not the highest officials of their government.
Likewise, I have removed the sections on closeted/outed and subnational LGBTQ+ leaders. In particular, there is so much ambiguity over who would qualify for the latter section (e.g.Pete Buttigieg, who was a municipal chief executive, is a gay male subnational leader, but he would not fit in with the regional chief executives who were listed).AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs)01:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC); edited 18:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stronglydisagree with the decision removing list of LGBT leader of subnational government.
No ambiguity - The premise of "ambiguity" is misguided. There is a broadly-accepted understanding of subnational entities being the top-tier administrative division of sovereign states, known most commonly in the larger countries as "states" (e.g. India, USA, Germany), "provinces" (e.g. China, Indonesia), or "regions" (e.g. France). So, no @AndrewPeterT, there would not be much serious debate about whether Mayor Pete should be included (the answer is a clear "no").
Relevance/Significance - The size of population/economic influence of some of the subnational entities led by LGBT leaders are substantially bigger than the national leaders listed. Before France made this list with Gabriel Attal (who as PM was politically subservient to the President, and has no electoral mandate), Canada's Kathleen Wynne and Brazil's Eduardo Leite were elected to lead Ontario and Rio Grande do Sul, each with population larger than every countries on this list.
I submit that the list of subnational leaders should be restored (perhaps with a column indicating population estimates for the jurisdiction they led at the end of their tenure)
Oppose – subnational leaders are not heads of state. If we were to go with a merge, the destination page would need to be renamed to something like "List of openly LGBTQ government officials"Jcgaylor (talk)02:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, the proposed destination article serves an entirely different purpose than the article to be merged into it. That is a valid reason to oppose the merger.Bravelake (talk)01:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the close, given that the discussion was stale, but feel that the case is sufficiently important to start another discussion, even though this is on the same day as the close! I'll approach a relevant project for additional input to drive more discussion.Klbrain (talk)
Those are absolutely different tests, as I can see from the sources:[1],[2],[3],[4],[5]. But a review article can be written to describe all the tests, choosing between them and differences:[6],[7]. It's just a question of sources.D6194c-1cc (talk)10:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to make it clear that the cardiopulmonary exercise test is a type (the most common type?) of cardiac stress test. But I'm not sure if merging is the correct response.Cardiopulmonary exercise test has a good level of detail and I wonder if a better solution would be to include a {{main}} hatnote inCardiac stress test#Cardiopulmonary exercise stress testing.
Yes, an exercise test is one *type* of cardiac stress test (the most commonly used type). For patients who are unable to do the exercise test (mobility issues, cardiopulmonary risk factors, etc.), there are other types of stress tests that can be done. For example a "chemical" stress test where the patient is given a vasodilator.
From an accuracy standpoint, the exercise stress/tolerance test should be a subsection in the main topic of cardiac stress test.
If merging is "controversial", one option might be to create this as a subtopic in the "main article" with a short summary and then a link to the "exercise test" page?BetsyRogers (talk)19:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRogers,Mgp28,D6194c-1cc,Klbrain, andTom (LT): The proposed merger was closed before this discussion opened. There is nothing to prevent someone from re-creating a new, formal, merge discussion, whether you support or oppose it. As original proposer I proposed it as a AFC reviewer seeing similarities. I was saddened that there were so few participants. I have pinged all who appear to be interested in the merge, either for or against. If I have missed anyone that is inadvertent. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸10:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over this discussion & the article again, and I realized I wasn't considering the fact that the goal of thecardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) is very different from acardiac stress test (with exercise). A cardiac stress test doesn't measure pulmonary function, while the cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) does. I'm not an expert on CPET, but I do know it can also be used to distinguish between cardiac dysfunction and pulmonary dysfunction (or a combination of both).
So it's basically a cross-disciplinary test/topic. I don't think it should be moved to an article dedicated to cardiac testing. This would make it harder for people to find when they're looking for information on pulmonary testing.
I propose mergingIdeal (order theory) into this page,Filter (mathematics). As Sonarpulse said above, the two concepts are perfectly dual so the articles are redundant. Currently, each is missing some important information. For example, this article is missing content about prime filters that is dual to the explanations about prime ideals that exist on the article about ideals.Jean Abou Samra (talk)13:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had already argued against this. Maybe it was another page? Anyway I'm not convinced; filters and ideals are generally used in different contexts. It's similar to how we don't mergeopen set andclosed set. --Trovatore (talk)23:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could we pin down the difference more explicitly? In the case of open set and closed set, they arecomplements of each other, so their articles naturally have different focus. With ideals and filters, the symmetry is with respect to the direction of the order relation, which is often arbitrary (I am pretty certain I have seen at least one account of forcing which reverses the order relation between forcing conditions).Bbbbbbbbba (talk)02:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't ever recall anyone talking about a "generic ideal" for a forcing poset. It is true that sometimes stronger conditions are treated as greater rather than (more usually) as lesser, but as far as I know you still talk about generic filters. --Trovatore (talk)05:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have just checked Saharon Shelah'sProper and Improper Forcing. In Chapter I he defined " being generic" as the conjunction of (1) " is directed (i.e., every two members of have an upper bound in) and downward closed (i.e., if then also)" and (2') " for every dense open subset of which is in". Obviously condition (1) is the usual definition of an ideal, but he simply uses neither the word "ideal" nor "filter" in Chapter I. In later chapters he does refer to a "generic filter" but I cannot find his definition of "filter". I wonder if he is just defining "filter" as the usual ideal...Bbbbbbbbba (talk)08:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I came across the AfD discussions for 4 articles about 4 books that are in a series. I don't understand why only four of the dozen or so articles have been nominated: it seems the other ones seem to have never been nominated.
This is the full series, in bold are the articles that have received consensus to merge to this page, in brackets are books that fall ouside the roman numbering system for the books (so the 2 "bonus" books):
I don't think we should merge these 4 intoThe Princess Diaries and leave the rest as-is. Some of the ones that weren't nominated were even much shorter than the ones that were nominated. (example:Project Princess)
Since there is consensus to merge these 4, I think we should also merge the rest. (I don't know why they weren't also nominated for deletion.)FaviFake (talk)13:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that I'm not asking whether we should merge all of these or not. Since there is consensus to merge 4, we only need to figure out what to do with the rest. These four are to be merged anyways.FaviFake (talk)13:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but.... one is aKeep. But as your link shows, some titles were taken to Afd so please go to AfD now.
STRONG PROCEDURAL OPPOSE- go to AFD for the other titles and please obtain the same consensus. Please consider withdrawing this as this is awkward. (And good luck with merging "MANY OTHER PAGES" (your wording, capitals included) into the page and make it a nice reading experience for the reader....) -E.UX20:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eva UXsome titles were taken to Afd so please go to AfD now. AfD isn't used for merger discussions. Merger discussions should be held at the proposed target, seeWP:MERGE. Articles forDeletion is fordeleting articles.I do not wish to delete these pages, thus I will not go to AfD. I want to merge them, as I think their content should be preserved. I f you instead want to delete them, you can nominate them yourself.Please feel free to change the wording of the template to a better one.FaviFake (talk)14:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Well, I am taking part in this MERGE discussion andopposingstrongly ALL those "additional" merging, then. Sources and reviews exist for each volume where AfDs have (unfortunately imv) been closed as Merge (see said AfdS) (and for the other ones), and if you merge plots and reception for each of them, it is going to be an incredibly cumbersome and confusing amount of prose, tables and lists. And even in the current state of all those pages (some being short) it is going to hinder expansion and improvement of the big article that will result of the merges. But hey.
Also, youcannot MERGE a page that is currently at AfdWikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess Diaries, Volume VII: Party Princess. So this one should at least not be on your list above (at least yet) and it is not necessary to discuss again the other decided at AfD (at least not now, and especially as you are suggesting the same outcome that has been judged as being the consensus there). But maybe that much was clear and maybe you are not suggesting a merge for that page.
I will note that you give no reason for merging except that other similar pages have been taken to AfD and closed as Merge. You repeat that argument twice. Consistency? Sure, but if any of those pages remains a standalone article, what, then?
I am not contributing anymore to those pages nor to this discussion because, so please don't ping me. I am very sorry but I don't have time for this and this is following a path I don't agree with. I won't change the wording of your template, no, it's your call. And obviously, unless you were trying to be ironic, no, I don't want them deleted. Again, good luck. -E.UX21:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and reviews exist for each volume where AfDs have(unfortunately imv) been closed as Merge
(emphasis supplied) Would you then prefer these outcomes were overruled by a consensus here?
I will note that you give no reason for merging except that other similar pages have been taken to AfD and closed as Merge.
A1 ("Would you then prefer these outcomes were overruled by a consensus here?"): No. Once an AfD has been closed, you generally cannot overturn the outcome anywhere unless you go toWikipedia:Deletion review. Which I won't. But I consider, indeed that, sadly,Cunard's arguments there were ignored. A2 (Consistency argument): Very well. One of the pages (the one mentioned above) is retained as a standalone article and, again,cannot be merged (per AfD), unless, again, you want to take it to deletion review or wait six months at least (in general, the time judged appropriate). So that you will have one article with a page and the rest merged into a huge and cumbersome article. It is going to be a terrible experience for the reader with one article isolated with a page and others cluttering up the big one of for the series. But hey. Again, I will not participate in that discussion nor in the merge. I disagree with the said AfDs' outcome and will watch the result it will have or the material it will discard, with regret but without intervening or commenting anymore. I oppose the additional merge you suggest, for size and navigation reasons, and will not change my mind. (PS- I apologise but will not follow this conversation and will not reply anymore) Cheers, ---E.UX21:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once an AfD has been closed, you generally cannot overturn the outcome anywhere unless you go toWikipedia:Deletion review. The page you link prohibits doing this:
Deletion review should not be used:
because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
Please rememberWP:CCC andWP:BUREAUCRACY. Saying that 12 articles can't be touched because some page somewhere says that you should wait 6 months after a KEEP afd, and just one of ~5 was a KEEP, doesn't really make sense. If you truly want them to ALL be kept, then you can propose it.FaviFake (talk)15:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So that you will have one article with a page and the rest merged into a huge and cumbersome article. Still sounds better than 5 of the articles being merged and 7 not being merged. Which is what will happen if we don't do anything.FaviFake (talk)15:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that the AfD should have been performed as a bundle AfD. It makes no sense from a consistency standpoint to merge select members of the series and not others, given they all received relatively similar quantities of reliable significant coverage.Katzrockso (talk)23:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editors may propose a change to current consensus,especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations(such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor [...]
Nobody in the AfDs ever mentioned the other pages, thus this is a "previously unconsidered circumstance" and current consensus can be overturned.FaviFake (talk)10:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose merging the rest at least, it would make this article far, far too long. It may be inconsistent but that's what we (wrongly) decided.PARAKANYAA (talk)22:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA @Stifle wait I'm sorry but I'm wondering why everyone here is supporting the consensus from the AfDs, while at the same time saying they disagre with it? Of course the AfDs reached a wrong consensus because nobody in the discussions knew of these other pages! I bet that if all 12 or so volumes has been nominated separately, some would end up as merge, some as keep, and some as delete. Which would be aninsane situation if actually followed!And this is precisely allowed by CCC! We can very easily override conensus reached without the participants knowing the actual situation!I truly do not understand these arguments.FaviFake (talk)15:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge - The books are legitimately notable on their own. They have had substantial work done on them and it would be a ton of work to merge them properly. It would also make for an intolerable reading experience for users.
The books are legitimately notable on their own. There was consensus at AfD that they were not. Any reason why you think the consensus is wrong?
They have had substantial work done on them ... which would not be lost as a result of a merger.
it would be a ton of work to merge them properly. That's a worry for the editor performing the merger. Merge discussions shouldn't be based on how much time it will take to perform the merger.Wikipedia is not working to a deadline.
It would also make for an intolerable reading experience for users How so? What seems intolerable is having t browse 12 different, small pages just for such a straightforward book series.FaviFake (talk)22:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was an (ill-informed) consensus thatsome of them weren't.
MergeCalls for a ceasefire during the Gaza war intoInternational reactions to the Gaza war. UnncessaryWP:CFORK. The page is hopelessly out of date, inevitably inexhaustive and incomplete. Much of the content is redundant, it's not encyclopedic andWP:NOTNEWS to include every single instance of countries issuing press statments or some random actor giving their opinions on a hot-button world event. Calls for a ceasefire was one of many forms that the people around the world reacted to theGaza war. To address pge length concerns, there needs to be a serious culling of what's reallyWP:DUE.Longhornsg (talk)05:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The content, including operations in the West Bank, is already covered at the target page so neither article length or being outside the Gaza Strip is an issue.Longhornsg (talk)02:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this article should be merged withNepali Army. The army Air service is integral part of army. It is useless to have 2 articles for same thing, especially when important information is split between them.PN27 (talk)09:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I support, but only that material which is supported by high-quality sources. As you found, there were many bad sources and a lot of OR in the firing article.Vanamonde93 (talk)16:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The subject is notable on its own. Additionally, there is no clear merge target, as the nominator's multiple attempts at merging the article here or there show.TryKid[dubious –discuss]07:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are fundamentally opposite effects, they should certainly mention each other and the superabsorption should show equations but, I'm not sure they should be merged since they are fundamentally different and would be used in different scientific discoveries. Superabsorption seems to be in the news due to new battery technology at the moment.2603:8001:71F0:11D0:98FE:A0B1:8B18:F830 (talk)21:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm checking, to see if there's anyone who supports it. If the original proposer wasn't interested any more, then there would have been zero people supporting a merger.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸21:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This comment seems to presume that everyone here should have an opinion on whether the two articles should be merged. Given the technical nature of the topic, some readers may not feel qualified to have an opinion on the merger. Others may understand the technical details but be undecided. More likely, Thebiguglyalien may be intentionally staying neutral to take a more administrative role in this proposal.--Srleffler (talk)17:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A stronger single article will be more useful until more work on superabsorption appears. At that point we can split if it makes sense. Here is a source that directly relates the two: Yang, D., Oh, S. H., Han, J., Son, G., Kim, J., Kim, J., ... & An, K. (2021). Realization of superabsorption by time reversal of superradiance. Nature Photonics, 15(4), 272-276.Johnjbarton (talk)17:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Short articles are not a problem, particularly if they have potential to grow someday. A merger is beneficial if there is synergy: are the two topics sufficiently related and will having them together aid the reader's understanding? --Srleffler (talk)18:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I say "yes, the two topics are sufficiently related". Generally short articles have an advantage of focus, but in the case of quantum radiation effects, adequate background material for typical readers would be required for both topics. Once this background is set, the two topics similar and the applications (egquantum battery overlap).Johnjbarton (talk)18:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This articleAsian relations with Northeast India should not exist, Northeast India or any state can not have direct foreign relations under the law. It comes across as nuisance or coattail to hang some agenda. It must be merged withForeign relations of India and speedy deleted.
Oppose perWP:SIZERULE at 11.5K words. This isn't an ongoing or enormous topic hence this isn't one of those exceptions where this guideline should be ignored. Contrary to the nom, it's not just a case of a few sentences, the current background in this article is 1,052 words, whereas the Background spin off is 2,492 words. We're talking of adding upto 1.5K additional words for an article that"probably should be divided or trimmed", not merged. If those 1,500 additional words are redundant then it's better to BLAR via AfD, not merged in order to produce a 13K unwieldy monster article; we have enough of these, we don't need more. For reference I made the split at the time due to the article being too big, trimming away in the process as part of this (hence the size difference). So if anything the background in this article, or other sections not well summarised, should be further trimmed so that the article is a more compact size and adheres better toWP:SUMMARYSTYLE.CNC (talk)12:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material. We're talking going to 12k words, with much more culling still apt to do.Longhornsg (talk)01:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes based on scope because there are many sub topics to summarise, likeGaza war which regularly struggles with this conundrum, orWWII for example. This isn't ahigher level summary style article like those, there is only the Background article along withReactions to the Iran–Israel war (that's around 5K words). It should be completely achievable summarising 1 parent and two children to <9K words as the scope is that of a small family. We're not discussing a large family of topics here per the scope, which is what the "sometimes justify" alludes to. Thus I'm proposing trimming (such as Reactions section), not adding here.CNC (talk)12:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support selective merge or possibly even aWP:BLAR. A merge doesn't mean you have to copy and paste every word of the article wholesale. Regardless, this article probably doesn't need to exist.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸22:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing inherently significant in this spinoff which isn't already covered here or atIran–Israel relations. We already have had a slew of articles related to this war AfD'd (many resulting in an rd), I see no inherent difference here. And needn't allude to AfD when the merge processes can also resolve the issue at hand. There have been other problematic POVFORKs like theEconomic impact of the Iran–Israel war, which I cleaned up recently (perhaps needs a merger/deletion as well), or other articles significantly POV slanted such as theNuclear program of Iran i.e. ARBIPA already struggles with inherent problems as is better limit the scope of articles which further exacerbate them.Gotitbro (talk)10:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support given that, as others have said, there doesn't seem to be a point for this article to exist given the main topic article has most information in it already.Yeoutie (talk)12:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on WP:Article size - on this page we already have 302,000 bytes and 602 citations. It's all the same topic, but jamming everything into one giant page is not going to achieve anything worthwhile.Moonraker (talk)08:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As this was raised before above, there is nothing special about the car to have its own article unlike some, not from the quality of the article.BuffaloTaro (talk)15:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It is an important historical vehicle of the Mazda brand from when then attempted to create a performance division. Without the separation, it would merely be another simple trimline and not a substantial attempt at advancing the companies objectives at the time.~2025-37411-22 (talk)00:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The mazdaspeed3 has so many differences from the other trim levels of the Mazda3 that it is often seen as a separate car completely. The mazdaspeed3 isn’t just a higher trim, it has a completely different drivetrain and other changes.Macintosh84 (talk)02:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Niantic Spatial was created from Scopely's purchase of their Niantic Games division forPokemon Go,Pikmin Bloom, andMonster Hunter Now. Niantic Spatial is a "spun out" company within Niantic which serves as their own content hub along withIngress andPeridot. The content that is on the article can be easily merged into the "Niantic, Inc." article. There's not enough history for the separate article to be noteworthy or standing on its own. –The Grid (talk)22:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Niantic, Inc and Niantic Spatial are in fact two completely separate entities. Based on the LinkedIn page for Niantic, Inc (which would be run by the company themselves), a header now shows at the top stating "Niantic, Inc. was acquired by Scopely. To see what's new, visit Scopely." All Niantic, Inc social media accounts have not posted after the merger was finalized, whereas Niantic Spatial has continued to post. News sites had been the ones to first use the 'spun out from' phrasing when describing Spatial's place in the merger but based on this firsthand evidence I would say that Niantic, Inc is a wholly separate entity. This Forbes article also describes in detail the process that went into funding "its new company", when referring to Niantic Spatial.
Apologies, but I forgot to add that the "About" section of Niantic Spatial's LinkedIn page also explicitly states: "Niantic Spatial, Inc. is a completely separate company following Scopely’s acquisition of Niantic, Inc."
Niantic Spatial should absolutely NOT be merged with Niantic Inc. cross referencing/linking on the other hand would be sufficient. They are independently registered and incorporated commercial bodies operating in completely different spheres. Niantic Spatial is centred around the implementation of AR into real world scenarios and is not controlled by Niantic Inc. Scopely simply bought the games from Niantic Inc with the exception of Ingress and Peridot, both of which serve as test beds for the technology that Niantic Spatial is nurturing.~2025-33986-12 (talk)23:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current content in Niantic Spatial came from the Niantic, Inc. article. They are both operating as Niantic. I probably should have done this as a AfD after the AFC review did not look at the article content and sourcing. –The Grid (talk)00:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Niantic Spatial and Niantic Inc are legally separate companies under different ownership. The former is a privately owned start-up focusing on AI/AR and Niantic Inc and its games are now owned by Scopely.EssexHero (talk)16:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting the Peridot franchise wiki page that similarly makes it clear that Niantic Spatial is a separate entity:
I run a community-created Peridot-centered Discord server and was curiously poking through since I saw how sparse Niantic Spatial’s current wiki page was, and then saw this merger proposal. I’m not affiliated with Niantic Inc OR Spatial, nor am I affiliated with any of these other accounts.DumeToJarrus (talk)11:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There's considerable overlap here and a lot of it is just listing games already listed at the main Niantic article. I see no reason this should remain split at present. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)04:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I had time to clean upNiantic Spatial and for a company that is 6 months old, their history is a lot of future projects and announcements. I don't think it's noteworthy for a separate page. It can be evaluated again at a later time. –The Grid (talk)13:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose – This was the assassination of Hezbollah's Number 2 leader (actually, probably the de-facto leader) at the time, and it also took out several other high-ranking Hezbollah leaders. It's notable enough for its own article. The current state of the article is more due to a lack of effort than a lack of sources covering the subject. On that note, I would say that Wikipedia needs more articles on these kinds of military strikes and special operations (such as the one that took out ISIL's second leader, Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi), not less.LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk)11:04, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why those three article should each have their own article? One is an uprated version of the WRX and the other is a rally version of the WRX STi - like creating a separate article for thePorsche 911 GT3 RS and its racing versions.
The WRX STI article are vastly unsourced. There are no sources until midway through the section about the 2nd gen, which is a forum post, then nothing after that. The first reliable source is of the 3rd gen. The WRC article are overreliant onWP:PRIMARY - hence why I suggest merging the two into this.BuffaloTaro (talk)22:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I feel like it would be best to have all of them in one place considering all 3 versions of the cars have little differences that the layperson wouldn't know right off the bat. Considering this and the aforementioned sourcing issues, I say we merge the articles.DubiousSauce (talk)23:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The former article is a subtopic of this one, and this article already contains almost all of its content. There is a small, partially unsourced section on later Swedish emigration, which is not included here yet. However, it is off-topic, as that content is not about colonies in the sense of territories owned by the state, and is better suited toSwedish diaspora.
This article is also short enough to not need splitting. It is also not likely to expand much in future, as we only need summary-style sections for each colony. There could be more discussion about Swedish colonial motives and other general discussion, but that wouldn't be specific to Americas.
Support, I don't see a reason to have a seperate article for the American colonies if this article already describes them thoroughly.Gvssy (talk)20:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Mainly because we have similar articles like:
Oppose per consistency with claims put forward above by Frinkman. The article on the colonies in America has potential to be expanded and that’s where the focus should be.Shellwood (talk)20:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These individual technical awards have been largely unsourced and do not appear notable enough in their own right to warrant individual pages. It would be better to merge the content of these articles into the main awards page.Skr15081997 (talk)17:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would make sense while the British Indian Ocean Territory exists, however if/when the territory is handed over to Mauritius the administrative situation may prompt a change in how this article is presented, and thus whether this article would itself need a Geography subarticle.CMD (talk)09:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's ok to send readers to Chagos Archipelago in the British Indian Ocean Territory entry, but the history of the Chagos Archipelago is complex and unique, involving numerous countries and governments and peoples. If the Chagos Archipelago entry were merged into the British Indian Ocean Territory's, I believe many of the nuances and important details of Chagos history and people would not be featured.~2026-31493-0 (talk)14:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a little discussion distinguishing the concepts ofappend,prepend, andconcatenate. Specifically, I venture thatconcatenation is more symmetric in that it emphasizes neither the first nor the second argument in binary operations. In contrast,append means to take a second something and put it after a first something. Furthermore,prepend means to take a second something and put it before a first something.
Is the article meant to be about the general concept of appending, or about specific functions/predicates called "append" that exist in various programming languages? It seems to be mostly describing the latter, though it goes on to talk about features in a random few languages that aren't named "append" at all. Furthermore, in my mind "append" is at least primarily a verb, but the lead sentence describes it as a noun (albeit marked up as code).
To me, "appendy tox" means modifyx to be the concatenation ofx andy as was immediately before the operation. You can append to a file, meaning the same thing. On the other hand, "concatenate" implies simply joining the strings, arrays, lists or whatever together, and where you put or what you do with the result of the operation is on the back of this.
So by the names, I would probably expect
concatenate(x,y) to returnx andy joined together and not modify either variable
x.append(y) to modifyx, and possibly return the modifiedx as a convenience (this is what .NETStringBuilder.Append does, for instance, if this counts on the basis thatStringBuilder is essentially a mutable string class)
y.prepend(x) to modifyy, and possibly return the modifiedy as a convenience
The article is a mess. It lacks a clear focus. From the history, I see that originally it was specifically about the Lispappend function. Subsequent edits have been a mishmash of:
Builtins in other languages calledappend that do the same thing.
Implementations of array/list concatenation in other languages.
Builtins to do the same in other languages that aren't calledappend at all.
Furthermore, the selection of languages covered is arbitrary. All the article is showing is how to do, in a small selection of languages, something for which there is a better-agreed-upon standard name:concatenation. I see that article purports to be aboutstring concatenation specifically, but it isn't entirely - one section is about concatenation of audio snippets. In any case, there's no real reason to for it to be about concatenation of a single data type. That article should be generalised to cover concatenation of arrays and lists (of which strings are typically an example) generally, and relevant content from this article moved there. I'll propose a merge. —Smjg (talk)21:04, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge, but without removing too much information from the TalmudicTorato Umanuto article, since it provides important context on the topic. 5 February 2026 update - after reading what IZAK said, I tend to agree, the article Torato Umanuto should not be removed.Axinoo (talk)15:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Axinoo Thanks. I think that could be a section of the new article, or a stand-alone that focuses just on the Talmudic principles. Very open to splitting the task, if you're interested.TimeEngineer (talk)16:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The comprehensive merge under such sections is a meaningful action. The page title I'd propose:IDF Conscription of Haredi yeshiva students (as distinct fromreligious Zionist yeshiva students who enlist via theHesder arrangement).--Deborahjay (talk)16:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose becauseTorato Umanuto applies all over the world whereverYeshiva students are to be found such as in the United States where tens of thousands of Yeshiva students study in yeshivas, for example as inBeth Medrash Gevoha in Lakewood NJ and haszero intersection with conscription into the IDF in Israel. It is a big mistake of logic and facts to merge a notion and concept which has to do with an ancient approach toTorah study going back many generations into a current hot political issue regarding conscription into the IDFtaking place only in Israel.IZAK (talk)00:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure that this company is notable for anything other than being the company that manufactures theCornerShot. It may also fail theWP:GNG due to too few sources coviering the company as opposed to its product. Thus, I suggest merging this page into that one.DeemDeem52 (talk)22:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an additional note, this page's content was also originally about the CornerShot before it was re-scoped to match its title as a stub. A merge was proposed in September 2010, but there was no discussion so it was closed as 'no consensus'. Pinging @Brynf wales and @111.68.99.197 relating to the article's history.DeemDeem52 (talk)22:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was previously a discussion on whether this article (EB Games Australia) should be merged intoEB Games.
At the time of initial proposal, EB Games Australia was a complete mess, filled with promotional content and otherwise not needed details. I condensed the article down considerably in the middle of the discussion. However, the sole opposer did not engage again after these changes were made.
EB Games now comfortably has an Australian section in its Current operations section which is nearly 1:1 of what features in this article. A similar example isHMV, which comfortably has international sections listed, the same withBorders (retailer).
I believe that readers will benefit from seeing all of EB Games in one article, there does not seem to be any benefit having its contents across two pages.Icaldonta (talk)19:44, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doesn't make much sense to give an international branch of a company its own article, especially if it's not independently notable and can be adequately covered in the main page.Cat's Tuxedo (talk)10:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: Identical companies should have a single article. It's not notable on its own outside of Australia, so it should be merged with the main article and the main article be expanded. fromPiperium (chit-chat,i did that) at13:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just commenting that the Houthis had controlled parts of Yemen prior to the civil war. Would their inclusion in this article be appropriate?Hsnkn (talk)17:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Abo Yemen. And Houthi controlls Northern Yemen before SPC's formation.
I propose mergingEtymology of Khuzestan intoKhuzestan province. I think the content in Etymology of Khuzestan can easily be explained in the context of this article, and, after the exclusion of some superfluous content merging them would not cause any article-size orweighting problems. There is no need for a full list of all sources that ever mention or discuss the name "Khuzestan", as there is in the Etymology of Khuzestan article; so that should not be merged.Revolution Saga (talk)20:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Toshavim and Megorashim are mutually constitutive and it makes more sense to address them in a single article.(I swear I've seen a policy somewhere about—for topics in a "thing" and "un-thing" situation—covering both in a single article. I can't find it, though.) We already have articles coveringSephardic Jews andNorth African Sephardim on the one hand andMaghrebi Jews,Berber Jews, andMusta'arabi Jews on the other, so it's unclear to me what benefit there is in of the current arrangement in two separate articles. I'm not aware of any sources that discuss one without the other.إيان (talk)13:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I propose merging Limited-run series intoMiniseries. I think they are sufficiently similar not to warrant two separate pages. The two terms are commonly used interchangeably, and minor distinctions between the two formats can be detailed on one page instead of forcing readers to jump from one to the other, depending on the specific topic they are more closely interested in.Revirvlkodlaku (talk)12:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I propose mergingDale Connelly intoThe Morning Show (Minnesota Public Radio). While Dale Connelly was a long-time co-host and writer forThe Morning Show on Minnesota Public Radio, the article does not currently meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) for a standalone biography. The subject’s notability appears to derive almost entirely from his role within a single notable program, rather than from significant independent coverage focused on him as a subject.
The article relies heavily on unsourced or weakly sourced descriptions of fictional characters, recurring jokes, and in-program segments, many of which are marked [citation needed]. It does not provide substantial coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources such as profiles, feature articles, or critical analysis focused on Connelly himself. This content does not establish independent notability underWP:BIO.
Given his long association withThe Morning Show, the information about Connelly would be more appropriately covered within the program’s article, where his contributions can be summarized in proper context. A merge and redirect would preserve content while aligning with Wikipedia’s standards for notability and article scope.
This nomination is not a comment on the subject’s importance to the program or his contributions to public radio, but rather on whether the current sourcing supports a standalone biographical article.Dode222 (talk)18:32, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming a merge is carried out, what content would actually be merged? Biographical content, or content about projects unrelated toThe Morning Show, won't fit in the target article.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸04:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The topics seem to be identical; i.e mostly a list of recipients. Therefore it makes sense to combine them into the same article. If the list were removed from this article to the new article, this article would become a stub. So I think merging the additional content from the new article onto the existing one would be best.
The history section of this article should also be expanded if possible to provide more context for the award and its importance.David Palmer//cloventt(talk)22:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MisawaSakura, @XtraJovial: Thanks for the discussion. To help clarify, could someone explain the distinction between Odakyu Group and Odakyu Electric Railway Co., Ltd.? From what I can see, the publicly traded company is Odakyu Electric Railway Co., Ltd., and its financial filings consolidate all the subsidiaries within the Odakyu Group. If you are advocating for keeping two separate articles, it would be helpful if someone could clearly define the boundaries between the two organizations—what belongs in Odakyu Group versus Odakyu Electric Railway—so readers aren’t confused by overlapping content.RickyCourtney (talk)21:31, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you still need a reply, the following from ChatGPT (insert disclaimer) sounds correct to me:
Odakyu Electric Railway (小田急電鉄)
This is the railway company itself — the operator that runs the trains.
Actually, upon further inspection, almost every single type of Pizza has its own article. I would actually not recommend this, as merging Pizzetta into Pizza would also require merging pretty much every other kind of Pizza mentioned in the article.Ukalik0 (talk)15:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ukalik0, whether articles are kept separate is decided on a case-by-case basis. It's fine to merge some but not all if some would be better covered in the main article and others would be better covered separately.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸21:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a question that can be answered with a simple yes or no. In principle, there is enough to say about ancient Prusa to fill a separate article, and the current content could easily serve as a start in that direction. On the other hand, it is true that the article is currently so short that it could well be integrated into the article on the modern city. Both options are feasible.DerMaxdorfer (talk)17:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point, let's see what the others have to say.
Comment: typically existing stand-alone articles about cities and towns from classical antiquity that differ in name from their modern counterparts are kept. Here the contents are currently brief and could well be fully merged into the modern city. However, because it could also get lost in that article, and may have considerable potential for expansion, perhaps it's best to keep a separate article focusing on its pre-Ottoman history, even if more of its current contents are included in "Bursa".P Aculeius (talk)14:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand P Aculeius as follows: With a separate article, it is easier to find the relevant information if one wants to know something specifically on Prusa.DerMaxdorfer (talk)00:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe....
Probably I will remove the merge tag from thePrusa (Bithynia) article.
@Bosley John Bosley: I have reopened the discussion. We can probably start moving verifiable information from the "Prusa" article as a direction to expand the History section of Bursa, since the Roman rule period there is pretty short, in my opinion.
...the hot springs in Prusa that's dubbed as the "royal water".
...the construction of baths in Roman-ruled Bursa under the permit of Emperor Trajan, which falls into the line about "well governance under Roman Emperor" because this event is cited[1] as a reference to said line.
@DerMaxdorfer,P Aculeius, andBosley John Bosley: According tothis source (access via The Wikipedia Library), Bursa is enstablished by King Prusias Ide novo, which means he built it from the ground. The source also indirectly states that Prusias ad Olympum (present-day Bursa) is different to Prusias ad Mare (what was once Cius and present-day Gemlik).
This led me to conclude that it might be quite an inaccuracy to put Cius as a part of the history of Bursa. It also made me reconsider that the articlePrusa (Bithynia) is probably a much better representative for the Prusias ad Olympum stuff, since the mentioned ancient city is often mistaken (by me, mostly, and also the guy who added Cius in the Bursa history section) as Prusias ad Mare, aka Cius.
Sorry for the long update, what do you guys think?
That Prusa ad Olympum (Prusa, not Prusias!) and Cius/Kios (temporarily renamed Prusias ad Mare, not Prusa) were two different cities is undisputable. It might be seen as an additional reason not to merge the articles on ancientPrusa ad Olympum andBursa. For me personally, it doesn't really change the situation that both solutions are possible. ThatCius/Prusias ad Mare could be part of the history of Bursa, however, is completely wrong in my eyes.
An in-depth account on the history of Prusa ad Olympum and the available ancient sources can be found in the second volume of Corsten's monograph (seePrusa (Bithynia)#Further reading), pp. 9-73. On Cius/Prusias ad Mare, Corsten has written a separate monograph:Die Inschriften von Kios. Bonn: Habelt, 1985,ISBN3-7749-2194-6, see especially the long introduction on the history of the city on pp. 1-72.DerMaxdorfer (talk)14:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- The "Terrorism in Australia" article provides contextual information, history, legislation, and analysis of terrorism trends. The "List of terrorist incidents in Australia" provides a chronological, factual record of incidents. Keeping them separate allows readers to quickly access either detailed narrative or a factual list without one overwhelming the other. Wikipedia commonly separates narrative articles from lists of events, this separation is a standard editorial practice to improve clarity and navigability.Rockwizfan (talk)09:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support — agree with proposer's argument that there is significant overlap between the two articles, and there is not an identified need for them to be separate.CommandAShepard (talk)11:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ideally it would probable be a list and a different prose article that gives greater detail on the broader issue, not a list article and a slightly worse list article. IMO removing the list content from the main terrorism in Australia article would be a better choice. Status quo is bad, though.PARAKANYAA (talk)05:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that would be the ideal but it might be more complicated in practice. Basically move the list content to one list article and then have a solely prose article evaluating the general phenomenon.PARAKANYAA (talk)05:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally that is a good idea; however, I can see reverts happening or a list creeping back into 'Terrorism in Australian'. That's why I proposed what I see as the more pragmatic solution.TarnishedPathtalk07:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or expand scope: "in Australia" isn't enough for a list page, there's only about 20 events on the list. Eıther merge it to the other page. Or alternately, expand the scope to a wider topic "List of terrorist incidents in Oceania" or "List of terrorist incidents involving Australia(ns)".Late Night Coffee (talk)16:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose :I digress. Warner Bros. Seven Arts was a separate company created from the merger of Warner Bros. Pictures Inc. and Seven Arts Production. The company didn't just see the Warner Brothers film studio, but it also saw the numerous other Warner Bros divisions along with record labels.TheFloridaTyper (talk)10:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as per my original comments. Dahomean religion is basically covering the same topic as West African Vodun, albeit with a slightly more restricted geographical and chronological focus.Midnightblueowl (talk)11:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose West African Vodún (WAV) is not just about the Fon religion, neither is Dahomean religion just about the Fon. The Fon is just a part of WAV and Dahomean religion, because the Fon people were not the only inhabitants of historical Dahomey/West Africa. To lump them together would be great generalisation, and shows lack of knowledge of African spiritual beliefs, diverse peoples, cultures, and traditions. Either we rename the Dahomean religion toFon religion - which would be my preferred solution if we are to even touch that stub, as all 3 (Fon religion, Dahomean religion, and West African Vodún) are independent of each other and equally notable, or we leave them as is. To make it as simple as I possibly can, the Fon religion (the traditional religious beliefs of the Fon people) is just a part of Dahomean religion which is a part of West African Vodún - which is a part ofAfrican traditional religions. Just like Catholicism is a part of Christianity with is a part of the Abrahamic religions. There are differences in Catholicism and other Christian denominations and other Abrahamic religions, and you can't and won't lump them all together. The same for African belief systems. We can't lump them all together.Vodún Priestess (talk)13:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very bare-bones page – with only 1 entry (and very low likelihood of growing anytime soon), this can easily be covered with a few extra sentences at40–40 club, as Ohtani's achievement is already included there. (In all honesty, that page could also probably be merged to30–30 club, but to keep the discussion focused, I am not proposing that for now.)RunningTiger123 (talk)03:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out its laid out that way because the very contact between the separatists and the US officials IS the crisis. Outlets and people included in the article have called it a crisis, and Canadian officials, as stated in the article, reacted harshly, with the premier of British Columbia calling it "Treason".
The article does not focus onto Albertan independence persay, it focuses on this specific chapter of this controversial political topic. Its a diplomatic crisis between two sovreign nations that deserve a separate article. The infobox used is not incorrect or sensationalistic, its just used to show the dynamic of the crisis, which is what it showcases.VitoxxMass (talk)17:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomatic crisis? That's rather sensationalist. There's no reason that this molehill can't be part of the existing article.Nfitz (talk)20:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the word "crisis" is a fringe theory. A handful of treacherous loons talking to the racist rapist is not a crisis.Nfitz (talk)20:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. I'm inclined to think the (so-called) crisis is notable, as it involves a claim of foreign interference. That other article is not really about Alberta separatism, butCanada–United States relations. (In fact, that article would make better sense for a merge target.)StAnselm (talk)18:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. Per StAnselm above, this has become quite a big event in the global media with large articles on it in most of the world's highest gradeWP:RSPs (no need to list here). The element of foreign intervention has made it a much more material event that merits coverage. Obviusly, should have a section in the mainAlberta Separatism article.Aszx5000 (talk)18:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge A subject can be notable but still not best served by having an independent article - seeWP:NOPAGE. This should be a subsection of the Alberta separatism article. In addition, to call the recent meetings a “crisis” meriting its own article is also not NPOV; even if the merge proposal fails, that wildly biased title needs to be changed ASAP.FlipandFlopped㋡19:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge this need more than 2 or 3 sentences in the existing article. A joke about the 11th province could create a "crisis" with the current regime in the USA.Nfitz (talk)20:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion; the article seems to be giving this event far too much prose for its actual importance. PerWP:FORK#Caution:having a separate article on a controversial incident may give undue weight to that incident--and this, to me, seems like an open-and-shut case of that, given the page only showed up a few hours ago. As for what to do with the page, it's fair to say everything that should be covered on this page is already adequately covered, and thus the page can feasibly be deleted without a need for keeping its history for attribution.Departure– (talk)20:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After talking with numerous wiki editors and seeing how the event unfolded in the following days, I, the creator of the article, would supportmerge.VitoxxMass (talk)12:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge - Clearly a notable development in the context of the overall movement, but not independently notable nor sufficiently prominent or separate to need its own article.GenevieveDEon (talk)09:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge - The new article would only be relevant if an actual referendum is held, otherwise its just another chapter of the same story.McCIrishman (talk)10:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I propose mergingBega Dairy & Drinks intoBega Group. Much of the former article remains un-cited and the 'Dairy & Drinks' group no longer seems to be a seperate division of the company. A section outlining the history of behind the former Lion Dairy & Drinks until the acquisition could be easily included in this article without causing any article-size orweighting problems.TechnicalNewt (talk)04:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think that's a great idea! This was my first article so I'm still getting up to speed with notability criteria etc. Appreciate the feedback!Chrisdd1999 (talk)01:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the merge proposal. Yes, asDclemens1971 says, her testimony was "very noteworthy", and certainly deserves a mention in the article about the case, but that one thing doesn't need a separate article.JBW (talk)14:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While there is some overlap, theKapitan article mainly focuses on the usage of the rank in the armed forces of formerWarsaw Pact countries. This content could be easily incorporated into the destination article.
I propose mergingSupreme commander-in-chief intoCommander-in-chief. Both of these ultimately deal with the highest command authority of a military, but "Supreme Commander-in-Chief"just seems to beis a translationfrom Russianof the corresponding Russian article. Which also means the interlanguage links have to be correctly aligned to follow the meaning, rather than the cognate titles. (or another language of the Former Soviet Union - in the FSU, the customary title is for the highest commander is "Supreme Commander-in-Chief", rather than the plain versions "Commander-in-Chief" favored in English-speaking countries or "Supreme Commander" favored in Continental Europe).Glide08 (talk)13:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I propose mergingTransitional shelter intoCrisis accommodation. Transitional & Emergency Shelter seem to be the preferred American term for what in Australia is called Crisis accommodation and in the UK is called Temporary Accommodation. In Ireland, it's called Emergency Accommodation. I think the content inTransitional shelter can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size orweighting problems.Komonzia (talk)03:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without prejudice: Right now the two are really closely entangled and the leak's notability relies on that of ICE List. If notability changes(ie, the leak becomes more significant/widely covered), we cansplit it back to its own article.–DMartin(talk)06:14, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the venn diagram is pretty much a circle. Even the other article might be mergeable into something broader about exposures of ICE employees. ← Metallurgist (talk)19:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge for the time being while events develop. The leak still has not been published by ICE List, which was started several months before the leak was passed on to them by an anonymous third party. Consider merging later based on how things play out, e.g. if one article's subject becomes the defining feature of the other. --TheMiddleWest (talk)17:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge. ICE List is not currently known to be directly related to the leak itself. Furthermore, current events involve ICE List as a distinct entity and this is shown by the sources in this article.Rob T Firefly (talk)15:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
do not merge, i concur with reasoning in the 4 replies above – likely that the website would meet notability without considering the data leak, and they don't appear to be directly linked anyways.Blaithnaid (talk)21:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge, I agree with the above reasoning - merging may increase the likelyhood that this information becomes suppressed.dananos (talk) 09:38, 04 Febuary 2026 (UTC)
Given the different character of the two lists, I think they need to be maintained as separate lists. The two articles could be retitled to make their different natures clear. If the idea is to put both lists in the same article, while keeping them separate, that could work. But I'm not sure that is an advantage.Y.D.McGinty (talk)12:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Here's how it's done with the Catholic Bishops:
Don't Merge – Keep articles as is but rename this article toHistorical list of bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America and cross-link them
Oppose The articleFano (militia) itself is oversized and significantly expanded due to largely paragraphs and update information. The faction list is another standalone because that produces a lot of paramilitary and military factions potentially and it fits to this article.AsteriodX (talk)19:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to propose that we mergeList of accolades received by Gladiator intoGladiator (2000 film). The awards list could fit comfortably into the Gladiator page. If we complete the merge, I would probably suggest we make the awards section text-only, as opposed to a table, because the table is bulky and takes up a lot of space in the article. Please seeThe Empire Strikes Back andBatman Returns as examples of Featured film articles that use text instead of a table in the Awards section. Please let me know your thoughts on the merge.OrdinaryOtter (talk)06:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input. Would you support the merge if we simply moved the table into the Gladiator page? To be clear, changing the Awards section to text is not part of my proposal, and would of course be subject to discussion. I just thought I would mention it as a possibility.OrdinaryOtter (talk)11:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge. I'd also suggest excluding the Saturn Awards and SAG Awards, since they're all nominations, and therefore, in my opinion, not really important for an average reader.Baltalı İlah (talk)19:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge, but I don't think it's necessary to remove anything from the list. Nominations are, in and of themselves, an honor and an indication of a film's standing.Beyond My Ken (talk)01:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely there needs to remain a separate article. I'd argue all the charity episodes should be split off into their own page too. The article is big enough as it is with an awful lot of tables.TheMysteriousEditor (talk)22:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - MNO has been around for a long while, and the present article doesn't fully reflect that. MNO notable on its own, and merging with article of an individual politician is to no benefit neither for Wikipedia nor its readers. --Soman (talk)13:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are they notable just for longevity? They have had no parliamentarians or elected local councilors. I do not believe they are notable enough for their own article.PenGear (talk)17:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They do have coverage, but all of it seems to be about them contesting elections or leadership changes. I would argue that similar to candidates not being notable for just contesting elections, political parties being successful should be a relevant criteria. If not, I am fine with the page as it is.PenGear (talk)18:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a fork. Aramaic square script precededKtav Ashuri. It is existed prior to its adoption, use and naming as such by Jewish scribes and it continued to be used by non-Jews too, both during and afterward. If you want to insist they are the same topic, Ktav Ashuri should be merged into this article, because it is the sub-phenomenon.Tiamut (talk)07:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I created it because it was missing.Ktav Ashuri is used to describe the use of the Aramaic square script to write in Hebrew, not to write in Aramaic. There is a difference between scripts and languages. The articles we already had did not describe Aramaic square script adequately, and there was nowhere to link to when I was writing about its use for writing non-Hebrew languages, so I boldly created a well sourced article explaining its genesis and constituents. This is not something bad by the way.Tiamut (talk)08:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to creating a new article if one is misssing, but what is the Aramaic square script being used for that isn't related to Hebrew or Jewish Aramaic manuscripts? I genuinely do not know what else it is used for? I can agree it must have been used for something else but the current article is entirely about Jewish related usage?Andre🚐08:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Its not solely about Jewish related usage, but even if that was true, there is a distinction, even when being used by Jewish scribes, between its use to write in Aramaic (in which case it is Aramaic square script) and its use to write in Hebrew (in which case it is Ktav ashuri).Tiamut (talk)08:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh, no, on the latter point. I don't believe that's true. Aramaic and Hebrew are written with the same square script, which is known alternately as Aramaic square/block script, the Assyrian script (ktav ashuri), or the Tiberian (with vowels). Do you have a source for that?Andre🚐08:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really mean that it's Aramaic square script when you use to it to write Aramaic, and Hebrew script when you write Hebrew. As you can see later on in that source when it talks about the Dead Sea Scrolls, it's the same script that survives. Which is to say that yeah, the Hebrew alphabet evolved from the Aramaic square script, but all the instances you discuss in the article are the Hebrew alphabet. It doesn't become a different script when they are writing Aramaic in the Dead Sea Scrolls.Andre🚐08:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Side note:This article was created unilaterally by you was a strange thing to say. Every article is created unilaterally. You called it out like an accusation.Largoplazo (talk)14:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the idea that the other article should be merged into this one and not vice-versa. It doesn't make much sense to treat the new article by one person created today, as the non-fork article.Andre🚐18:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) You can see they look the same, but you will never see a reloable source call the square script used to write the Aramaic language scrolls Ktav Ashuri, because that would be a misnomer.Tiamut (talk)08:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be clear, the source you just linked does. And it calls it the Jewish square script. It says all the scrolls were written in the Jewish square script.Andre🚐08:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. Read carefully. When referring to the Dead Sea scrolls it says "square script" in general, because they include Aramaic language inscriptions that are written in Aramaic square script.Tiamut (talk)08:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. As just before that it is talking about the Jewish square script being a descendant of the Aramaic. In any case, I am going to add texts that are written in Aramaic square too soon. Like those on incantation bowls, discussed here: "Spellings with aleph instead of 'ayin, or without 'ayin, are a salient graphic feature of certain magic bowl texts. The Aramaic square script texts often employ 'ayin for the long vowels /I/ or /ë/ as mater lectionis, even before yod, although the 'ayin is not etymological, e.g. אקעז "storm, wind" (CBS 16018: 17 = AIT 19 [SLBA]), יקעז "storms" (Moussaieff 107: אקיז)7 (AMB B13: 3) < Akkadian zïqu corresponding Syriac spelling conventions in the bowl texts (Müller-Kessler 2005b: 227; 2006b: 266); אפשיע (MSF B23: 4) (KBA), sp' (MSF B26: 2) (KS) < אפשיא* "spell" < Akkadian (w)asäpu. One can hardly call it "parasitic 'ayin", as does Juusola (1999: 37-8) following Naveh and Shaked (1985: 162), when its function is of a purely orthographic nature."Tiamut (talk)09:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And to be clear, these are not Jewish texts, nor is this a Jewish script. The bowls are Mandaic and written using Aramaic square script.Tiamut (talk)09:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, all the Mandaic bowls I've seen use theMandaic script, which is something also Aramaic-based but looks different. There are someincantation bowls that are Jewish and use the Jewish Aramaic script and some that are Mandaic that use the Mandaic script. It's not clear from that source if the bowls that are square script are described. Can you quote that?Andre🚐09:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The cult of Delibat and her Aramaic background can be traced back to her rise as a deity in the late Achaeminid and Hellenistic periods according to the cuneiform sources, where her name occurs in the onomasticon from Uruk.162 Later she merged with the Iranian deity Anâhîd.163 Her Akkadian epithet ezzetu "awe-inspiring" - only the Urukain Istar carries it - is in Aramaic "zyzf\ which became the Arabian al-'Uzzä, "the Venus-star",164 the Arabic elative form of 'zyzt'.'zyzt'.She features in many Mandaic magical texts as goddess of love, lyb't m'rty'm'rty'swpr' wrg'g' "Libat, mistress of beauty and desire" (DC 46 226: 7)165 and square script bowl texts as well, ךימשיבותבילדאתזיזעירמיזראתמחר "and in the name of the awe-inspiring Delibat, lady of the mysteries..."Tiamut (talk)09:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are several other explicit reference to Aramaic square script in that text besides the one I also provided above. Now if you don't mind, I would like to spend some time actually working on the article, rather than justifying its existence.Tiamut (talk)09:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not see where in the source it says that. I think the sources sometimes render something in the square script, i.e. using Hebrew letters, for ease of understanding, but I don't see where in Kessler it says that there are Mandaic bowls inscribed in square script or supports what you just added to the article.Andre🚐10:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not at all specify what script the bowls are in, that I can tell. [10:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)]
A couple of times it contrasts Mandaic, Syriac, and Aramaic script. That may be what you are referring to. Please see p.2 which refers to the Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and then in footnote 8 it distinguishes those 3. Mandaic is different from Aramaic script. See for examplethis source which talks about one of the bowls and it is clearly a Yahwistic bowl.Andre🚐10:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the differences between Mandaic script (which only emerged later by the way) and Aramaic square. You seem to be conflating scripts and languages, and Mandaeans used Aramaic, like many others, to write their language before developing their own unique alphabet. From another source: "Despite the prevailing controversy among scholars concerning the religious background of magic text formulas in various Aramaic scripts and dialects, certain bowl texts show undoubtable Jewish contents and lore, although not all Aramaic square-script bowl texts contain Jewish themes." The whole point of this discussion is to clarify that there is a need for an article on Aramaic square script, as it is an actual script that pre-existedKtav Ashuri and was used by others to write their own languages. Most of them later discarded it for more cursive forms, whereas it later became the basis for modern Hebrew. But it still existed outside of a Hebrew context, and that is why this article should exist.Tiamut (talk)10:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand now. Yes, Kessler analyzes the text of several square script bowls which she says have a Mandaic character (she doesn't say they are in the Mandaic language but that they have a Mandaic "vorlage") but Aramaic script, either due to invoking the deity Delibat or some linguistic features. Those aren't necessarily Jewish. However, the article as it stands, still has problems as the bulk of the text is indeed about Jewish stuff, including the scrolls, and the image from theKennicott Bible. In the original caption you wrote that those are 2 different scripts, when that is plainly not the case. I'm not sure there is enough to write about the bowls that doesn't belong at another article and so I still think a merge is in order. I don't think either one of us is conflating languages and scripts, but I think most of the article as it stands now is actually about the Hebrew alphabet and that is confusing. Also, Kessler is talking about the Late Antique, 3rd-7th century CE, and it definitely doesn't predate the Ktav Ashuri.Andre🚐10:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure you do understand? Because I did not write there are two different scripts in the caption for the Kenicott Bible but rather that one is in Hebrew (the language) and the other in Aramaic (the language). Both use a square script, practically identical, because the Hebrew alphabet switched to using Aramaic square script and dubbed its use of that script "Jewish" or "Assyrian" (i.r.Ktav Ashuri. I am against merging this article (obviously, as I would not have created it if there was no need for it).Tiamut (talk)11:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Check the article history. You wrote a caption, "Page from a Hebrew Bible with Onkelos (Aramaic translation), Hebrew square script on the left, Aramaic square script on the right" that implies two scripts. They aren't practically identical, they are literally identical.Andre🚐18:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When I checked it, there was no mention of scripts, because you deleted that, as you have elsewhere in the article. And by the way, the scripts can look identical but still be distinguished because of which language they are being used to write. Take a look atPaleo-Hebrew for example and tell me how it differs from thePhoenician alphabet.Tiamut (talk)18:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that you need a source that says it is different. Sources distinguish Phoenician and Paleo-Hebrew. It is not clear that Aramaic square script is something that does not substantiallyWP:OVERLAP with the existing material. There's a reason why this article was never created before.Andre🚐19:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Good morning Andre. I notice you have made several changes to the articlehere. One of these was erasing the quote by Albright about the lack of systematic study, citing its age. Could you provide which systematic studies have been done since then?Tiamut (talk)08:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fitzmeyer, Beyer, see[13] or Gzella[14], let's start with those. or Cross[15]. I mean think about it th Dead Sea Scrolls were barely discovered when Albright said that. Now we have[16]Andre🚐08:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would follow Dušek[17] but I think the Vanderhooft thing you just linked is critical of that. But, I think if you used all those sources in a balanced way and explain how the historiography evolved over time it would make a great article. A lot has happened since the 60s... BTW, Yardeni appears to be another good source.Andre🚐09:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in that chapter Vanderhooft seems to be on board with Aramaic cursive (also used by Tov among others in addition to Dusek), and critical of Yardeni and Cross' approach to ethnicizing the script. He does not dispute that is it out if it that the square script used for Hebrew was born, but criticizes the use of "proto-Jewish" or "Jewish" (Yardeni and Cross) to describe those early forms, as he sees their use even by Jews at that time as part of a broader imperial framework. The only thing I need to work out more is the relationship toAramaic monumental (previously lapidary) (nevermind, it is just a sub-type of Aramaic cursive written on stoneper Dusek in this work) Will review more literature and then determine the appropriate new heading and scope.Tiamut (talk)09:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, yes, but note that Vanderhooft accepts Cross and Yardeni's timeline that Aramaic cursive evolved gradually into the Hasmonean era book hand, by 3rd c. BCE, and he says that Aramaic's in Judah in 6th c. BCE.Andre🚐09:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I am not sure that a move toAramaic cursive is a good idea because it is quite a large topic. Have added a new source and infohere, which identifies one of the early examples of Aramaic square script.Tiamut (talk)12:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, theElephantine papyri and ostraca, some are indeed Aramaic cursive from the 5th century, and there are some in theCairo Geniza as well. It's Aramaic cursive any time they are writing casually and not calligraphically. The monumental or lapidary is for carving into rocks. Aramaic cursive though is still basically a subtopic of Aramaic and Hebrew alphabets. It is just what you call it when they are scrawling on a parchment instead of chiselling into blocks or writing fancy important decrees and important books. The sort of italic looking handwriting versus the classic blocky blocks.Andre🚐21:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Akopian defines Aramaic square script as Aramaic cursive whose letters fit into squares, calling Elephantine Papyri texts as example of that.Tiamut (talk)08:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - which page? Aramaic square script can be cursive but isn't always. Monumental isn't. And the print in the Kennicott Bible is square script but not cursive.Andre🚐19:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
p. 73 for the square fitting into squares definition. You are right, its not always cursive. There is a lot more great and detailed information in that book. You can use find in page to search terms, or check the index under 'square' for more.Tiamut (talk)22:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Aramaic square script" could totally be a page, but there's absolutely nothing on this page currently that justifies its existence. It needs massive improvement if it wants to continue to exist.GordonGlottal (talk)02:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) The article is written from scratch. There was no splitting off of material from anywhere. I did include a paragraph fromKtav Ashuri on its development but removed it because of your concerns of overlap. There will be more added on the specifics of the script itself soon. You can't discuss a script though without also discussing a bit of wider linguistic and historical context.Tiamut (talk)15:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What I also fail to understand is why there is no problem with maintainingKtav Ashuri as a separate article? According to this short definition by Christa Muller-Kessler, it just means "Assyrian script":
Square script: (ketāḇ merubbā) is the term for the style of script in which Jewish Hebrew and Aramaic texts are written. It developed from the Aramaic square script style (in the Babylonian Talmud ketāḇ aššūrī, i.e. Assyrian script), which according to the Babylonian Talmud (Aboda Zara 10a) was brought from Babylonian captivity to Palestine by Jews in the post-Exilic period, whereas the Samaritan style developed from the palaeo-Hebraic script. The earliest documents extant in square script are fragments of the Biblical books Ex and 1 Sam from Qumran (2nd cent. BC), the Nash papyrus and later mosaic, burial and ossuary inscriptions (1st-2nd cents. AD). In the broadest sense two other contemporary kinds of writing in Palestine could also be described as square script, the Samaritan and the Christian-Palestinian-Aramaic. The latter arose out of the Syriac Estrangelā. Both scripts were apparently adjusted in imitation of the Aramaic square script.
Aramaic square script is the ancestor script for the modern Hebrew alphabet. But it was/is used to write other languages besides Hebrew. It can't be covered in Hebrew alphabet, nor can it be covered in Ktav Ashuri which is a derivation of it.Tiamut (talk)11:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is where the formal merge discussion is supposed to go if the proposal is to merge it here. Refer to the merging instructions. This is also the most-watched and trafficked page so it's hardly stealth. I linked the other discussion as it is relevant. I also added a note toTalk:Aramaic alphabet since possibly some of this belongs there.Andre🚐23:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that the Aramaic Square script being merged solely into Hebrew is just not tenable
The original article confuses the Aramaic Alphabet of the Achaemenid period with the later Aramaic version of the Hebrew Alphabet used for Judeo-Aramaic so I instead propose to split the contents of that article and have some parts join the Hebrew Alphabet article and others the Aramaic Alphabet article.Theopedias (talk)17:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fine but at the same time Ktav Ashuri literaly just refers to the Hebrew Alphabet/Abjad and was named that way because later jews thought it Originated in Assyria and while that is partially correct the Hebrew Alphabet is a descendant of the Aramaic Alphabet used by Assyria and Iran it misses context and the fact that the scripts are different especially as the Imperial Aramic Abjad was not square had different letter shapes from later Hebrew.
There are practically zero examples of a block like script of that kind in 200 BCE though. And the definition of "square" given by Akopian is that the letters could fit into square shapes, not that they were blocky per se. They could be a form of cursive, as two of the examples pictured in the article are. There seems to be much confusion within the field of paleography over how to categorize and what typologies to use for charting the development of the square script(s).See here & Longacre's brief cited in the article. This confusion is certainly reflected in my original article. In that sense, I have at least been faithful to the sources.Tiamut (talk)21:05, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. "Assyrian script" or "script of Assyria" to describe Aramaic (and only later adopted to describe the square script) seems to have entered Hebrew from Egyptian sources like theDemotic Chronicle via the Greek, at least according tothis paper.Tiamut (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC) And this is missing from the existing article onKtav Ashuri, which should probably be mentioned in this discussion as well.Tiamut (talk)21:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yes You are right and we should mention Orientalia
Some scholars even say the Phoenician, Aramaic and Hebrew scripts are all one semitic abjad and in 2004/05 there was a lot of opposition to the creation of Phoenician Unicode so the separation of what counts as Imperial Aramaic or Hebrew is always going to be fuzzy.Theopedias (talk)10:20, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, its one Abjad (properly Canaanite) that was used by all of them to write their different languages/dialects. And this Aramaic=>Hebrew square script is one alphabet too. There is no exclusively Hebrew alphabet. They switched from using the Canaanite to the Aramaic.Tiamut (talk)13:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We normally do not consult on moving article titles, but this one is a little different because it entails a merger as well.
1) Heterogeneous gold catalysis remains a quietly active area with few or no applications. One hint that there might be a slump is the long theory section vs a lively app section mentioning scale of operations and new technologies. The topic is ranked "low importance".2) Homogeneous gold catalysis remains a mildly active area with few or no applications. The topic is sort of an appendage toOrganogold chemistry. The long homogeneous section crowds out or ignores more basic info on organogold chem to some small extent.
So in my view, we have two slightly sputtering areas. My solution is to move the homogeneous catalysis section fromOrganogold chemistry into a newly renamed article on gold catalysis. The downside of my proposal is that the heterogeneous and homogeneous topics have little overlaps aside from using carbon-based substrates and using Au as the catalyst.
Some reviews in Chemical Reviews and Chemical Society Reviews since 2011:
Hendrich, Christoph M.; Sekine, Kohei; Koshikawa, Takumi; Tanaka, Ken; Hashmi, A. Stephen K. (2021). "Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Gold Catalysis for Materials Science".Chemical Reviews.121 (14):9113–9163.doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00824.PMID33315377.
Reyes, Ronald L.; Iwai, Tomohiro; Sawamura, Masaya (2021). "Construction of Medium-Sized Rings by Gold Catalysis".Chemical Reviews.121 (14):8926–8947.doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00793.PMID33021782.
Chintawar, Chetan C.; Yadav, Amit K.; Kumar, Anil; Sancheti, Shashank P.; Patil, Nitin T. (2021). "Divergent Gold Catalysis: Unlocking Molecular Diversity through Catalyst Control".Chemical Reviews.121 (14):8478–8558.doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00903.PMID33555193.
Zhang, Yan; Cui, Xinjiang; Shi, Feng; Deng, Youquan (2012). "Nano-Gold Catalysis in Fine Chemical Synthesis".Chemical Reviews.112 (4):2467–2505.doi:10.1021/cr200260m.PMID22112240.
Li, Deyao; Zang, Wenqing; Bird, Melissa J.; Hyland, Christopher J. T.; Shi, Min (2021). "Gold-Catalyzed Conversion of Highly Strained Compounds".Chemical Reviews.121 (14):8685–8755.doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00624.PMID33180474.{{cite journal}}:Unknown parameter|DUPLICATE_doi= ignored (help)
Campeau, Dominic; León Rayo, David F.; Mansour, Ali; Muratov, Karim; Gagosz, Fabien (2021). "Gold-Catalyzed Reactions of Specially Activated Alkynes, Allenes, and Alkenes".Chemical Reviews.121 (14):8756–8867.doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00788.PMID33226774.
Bhoyare, Vivek W.; Tathe, Akash G.; Das, Avishek; Chintawar, Chetan C.; Patil, Nitin T. (2021). "The interplay of carbophilic activation and Au(i)/Au(III) catalysis: An emerging technique for 1,2-difunctionalization of C–C multiple bonds".Chemical Society Reviews.50 (18):10422–10450.doi:10.1039/D0CS00700E.PMID34323240.
Zi, Weiwei; Dean Toste, F. (2016). "Recent advances in enantioselective gold catalysis".Chemical Society Reviews.45 (16):4567–4589.doi:10.1039/C5CS00929D.PMID26890605.
Wang, Wenliang; Ji, Cheng-Long; Liu, Kai; Zhao, Chuan-Gang; Li, Weipeng; Xie, Jin (2021). "Dinuclear gold catalysis".Chemical Society Reviews.50 (3):1874–1912.doi:10.1039/D0CS00254B.PMID33315028.
Chen, Kewei; Yao, Minghan; Xu, Xinfang (2026). "Advances in gold-catalyzed asymmetric alkyne functionalization".Chemical Society Reviews.55 (2):869–909.doi:10.1039/D5CS00739A.PMID41363033.
Hu, Yan-Cheng; Zhao, Yingying; Wan, Boshun; Chen, Qing-An (2021). "Reactivity of ynamides in catalytic intermolecular annulations".Chemical Society Reviews.50 (4):2582–2625.doi:10.1039/D0CS00283F.PMID33367365.
Pflästerer, Daniel; Hashmi, A. Stephen K. (2016). "Gold catalysis in total synthesis – recent achievements".Chemical Society Reviews.45 (5):1331–1367.doi:10.1039/C5CS00721F.PMID26673389.
Asiri, Abdullah M.; Hashmi, A. Stephen K. (2016). "Gold-catalysed reactions of diynes".Chemical Society Reviews.45 (16):4471–4503.doi:10.1039/C6CS00023A.PMID27385433.
Pina, Cristina Della; Falletta, Ermelinda; Rossi, Michele (2012). "Update on selective oxidation using gold".Chem. Soc. Rev.41 (1):350–369.doi:10.1039/C1CS15089H.PMID21727977.
Qian, Deyun; Zhang, Junliang (2015). "Gold-catalyzed cyclopropanation reactions using a carbenoid precursor toolbox".Chemical Society Reviews.44 (3):677–698.doi:10.1039/C4CS00304G.PMID25522173.
Liu, Le-Ping; Hammond, Gerald B. (2012). "Recent advances in the isolation and reactivity of organogold complexes".Chemical Society Reviews.41 (8):3129–3139.doi:10.1039/C2CS15318A.PMID22262401.
Thank you for the advice. Now that I have collected reviews from the Chemical Society Reviews (Royal Society of Chemistry journal), I have some misgivings. I'm hoping that we hear from others.--Smokefoot (talk)20:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Against:Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee is distinct from theUniversity of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Although the former merged with theUniversity of Wisconsin–Extension to create the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee maintains its own separate history. There is sourced content in Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee, such as information on alumni and student life or sports, that would not appropriately fit intoHistory of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Content like this is typical for university and college articles. Expanding these and other sections in the Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee is feasible, given the availability of sources, and allowable because Wikipedia does not have space limitations.
There is also a noticeable difference in article quality. Efforts are underway to secure additional sources and expand the content of the Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee; the article was under an "in use" tag when the merger discussion was originally posted. Some improvements have already been made. In contrast, theHistory of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee continues to present challenges, particularly with unsourced material. The merger will address these issues, as content concerning the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee is largely unsourced. Given the overlap in content, it may be more effective to merge History of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee intoUniversity of Wisconsin–Milwaukee#History, which provides similar information with stronger sourcing.Rublamb (talk)00:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Might not be a bad idea, in the present, because these are all fine as-is, but could be a beefier single piece if all of the information was collected. It could split out later again as sections get big enough over time. —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)00:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HARD DISAGREE They are two COMPLETELY different things.
Well, Fall semester starts tomorrow and I'm working on my MA. But I swear I am still working on this – I have started with expandingIntelligence field, and next I will expandIntelligence (information).
@Closed Limelike Curves Do you understand where I am going with this? Because epistemology makes me very bored, the kind of autism bored where I can feel my blood rushing through my arms, but I also want to make sure that these pages don't get merged.Guylaen (talk)11:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with @Guylaen on this particular set of articles, for the idea (I think we talked about it a year ago, ish?). Each of these can easily be 20kb or 30kb+ articles or bigger, but it's just abit esoteric and simply needs someone to build it out from the web of articles linked on . A few of us have nibbling on it, but there's always either another fire or a shiny that distracts you. They're already much bigger now and some are different enough (despite very similar presenting names) that merging them would be Frankensteining awkwardly. —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)16:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, ok after this expansion, I take it that "intelligence field" is meant to be an article about the private industry? Maybe it could be moved to "intelligence industry", then, to be clearer about this?– Closed Limelike Curves (talk)04:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Intelligence field is the more common usage. Writers tend to prefer the term, because it differentiates the industry from the battlefield.Guylaen (talk)16:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I propose merging2026 Paipa Piper PA-31 crash intoYeison Jiménez. Light aircraft crashes are rarely notableper se (seeWP:EVENTCRIT #4) and from an aviation point of view there is nothing significant about the crash. The only significant aspect of the crash is the death of Jiménez, and thus a standalone article about the crash is not needed. One or two additional sentences in the Death section of Jiménez's article would be sufficient.Rosbif73 (talk)10:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crashes involving Wikinotable people as a rule have articles.WP:NTEMP cuts both ways - we don't have to wait to 'establish notability' if notability is already established, which it appears to be.
There are also plenty of cases where crashes are covered solely in the notable person's bio – but in any caseWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for or against deletion or merging. In this particular instance there is almost nothing to say about the crash itself, sources are purely news reporting with no analysis, and nothing indicates that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill general aviation accident. It seems highly unlikely that there will be anyWP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE about the crash (rather than about Jiménez) beyond the initial news cycle or that the crash will have anyWP:LASTING effects. Furthermore, regardless of the crash's notability (or lack thereof), the merge would be appropriate perWP:PAGEDECIDE. In the unlikely event that we do see in-depth sustained coverage, or if something unusual comes to light in the investigation, then of coursethe article could be re-created.Rosbif73 (talk)07:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree thatWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a policy. My point with the examples was to illustrate editorial consistency in treating fatal aviation accidents involving notable figures as distinct events.
The core issue is notability. This crash is not a "run-of-the-mill" accident due to its immediate and profound cultural impact in Colombia: the death of a top national artist, the declaration of official mourning, and coverage at the presidential level. This meets the threshold of "significant coverage" and "lasting effects" in the cultural domain.Shiningr3ds (talk)11:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In this instance, the crash is totally run-of-the-millfrom an aviation point of view. The only significant factor involved is the death of a notable person.
The cultural impact and the other factors you mention are indeed probably sufficient to establish notability, but they apply much more strongly to Jiménez than to the crashper se. This is whereWP:PAGEDECIDE comes into play: even if we accept that the crash can be considered as a notable event, it is preferable to cover it in Jiménez's bio rather than in a standalone article.Rosbif73 (talk)12:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ExaminingWP:PAGEDECIDE, which you are referring to, I find that the proposed merge contradicts several of its key principles, which states decisions must be based on "specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable" and not on personal preference.
1.Standalone page best serves reader understanding. PAGEDECIDE states:"Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page." This is exactly such a case. A reader seeking information on aviation safety in Colombia, Piper PA-31 accidents, or fatal crashes of public figures would not logically look in a musician's biography. Merging the information buries it in an unrelated context, harming findability and understanding. A dedicated page serves a distinct informational purpose and audience.
2.The rule explicitly warns against mergers due to"space availability". The text says:"the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability." Arguing to merge a notable event into a biography simply because it's "preferable" risks being exactly that.
3.The "needed context" argument works against the merge. The rule asks:"Does other information provide needed context?" Here, the biography provides almost no needed context for the aviation accident. The context for the crash is the history of the aircraft, weather and investigation procedures — not the artist's musical career.
4."What sourcing is available now?" supports a standalone stub with a future. The rule advises that a short page with potential for expansion"is better expanded than merged." This is a textbook example: sourcing is currently news-based, but the official investigation by Aerocivil guarantees future, in-depthWP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Merging now would be premature and would require a later, more difficult spin-off.Shiningr3ds (talk)13:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat: the crash is totally run-of-the-millfrom an aviation point of view. If Jiménez had not been on board, the crash would not have been notable at all and the article would in all likelihood have been deleted (judging by precedent from similar light aircraft accidents). Your putativereader seeking information on aviation safety in Colombia, Piper PA-31 accidents would quite rightly have found nothing in Wikipedia about this crash, because there's nothing encyclopedic about it from an aviation point of view. Once we exclude that non-encylopedic aviation-related information, all that's left are a few details about the music-related context which would be best covered in his bio.
As to the official investigation, that is not in any way a guarantee of future in-depth coverage. An official report will almost certainly be published, sure, and news outlets will no doubt pick up on that, but (again based on precedent from similar light aircraft accidents) it is highly unlikely that coverage of the official report will extend beyond a very short news cycle, or that the news coverage will contain in-depth analysis.Rosbif73 (talk)16:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My position remains that a standalone article is the correct outcome perWP:PAGEDECIDE, precisely because of the unique confluence of factors you describe.
Your correct observation—that the crash is notable precisely and only because Yeison Jiménez was on board—defines a unique encyclopedic topic: "The fatal aviation accident that resulted in the death of notable person X." The "music-related context" is not incidental; it is the central, defining context of the accident itself. The purpose of a standalone article is to document this specific circumstance in full, which is a different scope from documenting the person's life and career.WP:PAGEDECIDE favors the format that best serves the reader's understanding of this specific context. A reader seeking to understand how, when, and where Yeison Jiménez died will not be best served by a brief section in a biography focused on his life and career. They will expect a detailed account of the flight, the investigation, and the official findings. A standalone article is the only format that can properly structure this information with appropriate weight, using standard aviation-accident sections.
The official investigation guarantees a minimum of encyclopedic content. Regardless of the news cycle, the final report will be an authoritative, primary source documenting the cause. This fulfillsWP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE by definition. A standalone article is the natural and organized place to archive this finding.
Your hypothetical scenario ("if Jiménez had not been on board...") is irrelevant.He was on board. This fact transformed an ordinary aviation incident into a nationally significant event, warranting a unique encyclopedic entry. The purpose of Wikipedia is to document what did happen, not what could have happened.
You evaluate the crash as anaviation event. I (and the sources) treat it as anotable incident involving a public figure. PerWP:PAGEDECIDE, the best way to cover such an incident is a dedicated page. To make this clear and address the «run-of-the-mill aviation» point, I formally proposerenaming the article such as"Death of Yeison Jiménez".Shiningr3ds (talk)18:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, my rationale above was based on the premise that, given the article title, we were considering this as an aviation event. I entirely agree that it is in fact primarily anotable incident involving a public figure, and would support your rename proposal if there is consensus to retain a dedicated article. However, there is very little to say about his death (particularly if we set aside the aviation-related details which you agree are not enyclopedic), and a dedicatedDeath of Yeison Jiménez article would no doubt remain a permanent stub; a single-paragraph "Death" section in his main bio article would be largely sufficient, in line withWP:PAGEDECIDE's reasoning thatat times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic andWP:PERMASTUB's note that[f]or some permastubs, the best course of action might be merging them into larger articles.Rosbif73 (talk)10:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for agreeing to the rename. I must correct one point: I never stated that the aviation details are "not encyclopedic." I stated they were secondary to the event's notability, but the official investigation report will be a primary encyclopedic source. I must note,WP:PERMASTUB is an essay, not policy. It cannot overrideWP:PAGEDECIDE or notability guidelines. Thiis article is the opposite of a "permanent stub." It documents a major event with guaranteedWP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE (the official report). Its counterparts in other language editions are actively expanded, proving its growth potential. Declaring it a "permastub" now is aWP:CRYSTALBALL — predicting the future without evidence.
You have conceded the event is notable and agreed to a rename. Therefore, the rational path forward is to rename the article to "Death of Yeison Jiménez" and allow editors (myself included) to develop it with the available and forthcoming sources.Shiningr3ds (talk)12:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I'm here because my opinion was solicited after an edit I made on the article in question. It looks like a decent, well-sourced, and thorough article in itself. Start class, possibly even C class. One recent precedent I think of is the2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, which killedKobe Bryant, his daughterGianna,John Altobelli, and six others. The crash involved one person, Kobe, who was already Wiki-notable, and latter two listed individuals had Wiki articles created for them the day of or day after the crash.
Even more recently was last month's2025 North Carolina Cessna Citation II crash, which killedGreg Biffle. I believe Biffle was the only person on board who has a Wikipedia article, yet the existence of his airplane crash's article never seemed to be up for discussion. I think this crash's article and coverage would have great reference points for the coverage of the Colombia crash that happened this month.
If there is expanded notable coverage unique to the crash, then I'd support keeping the article. But with their being only one Wiki-notable person killed in the crash, I can see why a merging redirect would be warranted. But given the coverage it already has, there is a good case to keep the crash article. I'm not super-qualified to opine here, since I only know of Jiménez because of this crash. But if the information is full enough and verifiable enough, then I wouldn't think it necessary to take the crash article down. I was going to vote "neutral", but instead decided on "weak oppose". I think it is an article worth keeping, especially if there are details on the crash article that would be unfit or not as germane to theYeison Jiménez article.Mungo Kitsch(talk)
The principle ofWP:PAGEDECIDE (WP:NOPAGE, if that's more convenient for you), which you cite, does not mandate a merge per se; it guides us to choose the format that best serves reader understanding. As detailed in my earlier comments (1,2), a standalone article under a title like "Death of Yeison Jiménez" or "Yeison Jiménez plane crash" is the format that best satisfiesPAGEDECIDE's criteria for this specific notable incident.Shiningr3ds (talk)04:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Light aircraft crashes not operated as a scheduled/charter flight by an established airline should be merged or redirected in my opinion. While they are unfortunate events within the industry, they are not notable enough to warrant a dedicated page. I am in support of a dedicated section providing a detailed summary of the circumstances of the crash on the Yeison Jiménez page.Frequentflyer93 (talk)01:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The airline and aircraft type are completelyirrelevant. The crash is notable because of the Yeison Jiménez and the national response — mourning, riots[18][19], a tribute attended by tens of thousands. The article is fully sourced, including investigation preliminary report, and is not a stub. By your logic, the article on the1999 Martha's Vineyard plane crash should also be merged intoJohn F. Kennedy Jr.'s article, since it was a light aircraft crash with a private individual at the controls. Please actually read the article and the previous discussion before commenting.Shiningr3ds (talk)15:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This crash is not notableas an aviation event, as you agreed above. Comparisons with other crashes are irrelevant, perWP:OTHERSTUFF. At best, it could be converted intoDeath of Yeison Jiménez, though I continue to believe that merging into Jiménez's article is the best solution.Rosbif73 (talk)15:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@11WB:NOTINHERITED does not apply here because the crash itself has received significant independent coverage beyond mere mentions in Jiménez's biography. El Tiempo[20] and other Colombian sources published detailed articles analyzing the preliminary report, the circumstances of the accident, and the public response — not just "a famous person died". This is the exact same rationale why1999 Martha's Vineyard plane crash is a standalone article: the person was famous, but the event itself was covered in sufficient depth. NOTINHERITED is about empty "he's famous so this is notable" arguments.
@Rosbif73: I never agreed the crash is non-notable. I said its notability isn't primarily aviation-technical — because the death of Jiménez is the main driver of coverage. That's not the same as "non-notable". The preliminary report is a primary source, but it's also evidence that the crash itself is a documented, investigated event, not just a footnote in a biography. The actual notability of the Paipa crash stands on its own sources (I quoted above) — and you keep ignoring them.
The Kennedy comparison isn'tOTHERSTUFFEXISTS — it's a reductio ad absurdum of Frequentflyer93's logic, not a "keep because Kennedy exists" argument. If "light aircraft + unknown airline" automatically meant non-notable, the 1999 Martha's Vineyard crash article would have been deleted many years ago. It wasn't, because the passenger's fame and the resulting coverage made it notable. Same here.
At this point I'm actually leaning toward renaming the article toYeison Jiménez plane crash. It's more precise: the article covers both the accident (with details from the preliminary report and sources about accident) and the aftermath. "Death of..." is vague and better suited for cases where the circumstances aren't the main event.Shiningr3ds (talk)16:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been involved in this discussion. At the moment it looks like no consensus has formed. In the event this closes as NC,this AfD will automatically reopen.11WB (talk)16:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As a former Flight Attendant who is also aware of many aircraft accidents and incidents, I stand by my opinion. My comment and opinion was not meant to diminish the severity of an aircraft crashing that resulted in the loss of life. I absolutely agree that this accident is notable, however, I agree with merging it into Yeison Jimenez's page under a dedicated section, which I previously stated. This crash of a light aircraft, while deeply upsetting, is not an uncommon occurence within the aviation industry, did not result in mass casualties both on the aircraft and on the ground thankfully, and won't be viewed within aviation circles as a major safety related turning point within the wider industry. When I alluded to the fact that this aircraft was not operated by an established airline operating on a scheduled or charter route, what I meant by this was that if it were, it would have a far greater impact regionally and internationally on commercial passengers and airline/aviation professionals.Frequentflyer93 (talk)16:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Frequentflyer93: You say the accident is notable, then argue for merging. Those two positions are contradictory. If it passesGNG — and it does, per El Tiempo and other Colombian sources covering the crash itself in detail — it deserves a standalone article. Merging is for non-notable events mentioned in passing. This isn't one. I appreciate your aviation background, but this isn't about what the industry considers a "major safety turning point". It's about what reliable sources have covered in depth. They've covered this crash. Extensively. That's what matters here. @11WB: Fully prepared for that outcome, and honestly I'm genuinely curious to see which notability criteria you'd even nominate it under at this point.WP:EVENTCRIT#4? Doesn't apply — the crash attracted lasting attention specifically because of Jiménez, and that's part of the event itself, not a separate footnote.WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE? Already satisfied — El Tiempo and others covered the preliminary report in detail weeks after the initial news.WP:PERMASTUB? Article is Wefully expanded, not a stub.WP:LASTING? Riots, departmental mourning, 14,000+ at a tribute — that's lasting impact by any reasonable standard. I've addressed every single argument thrown at this article. So yeah, reopen it. I'll be there.Shiningr3ds (talk)17:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE andWP:NOTNEWS don't apply here for one simple reason — thisisn't a routine accident that got brief local news coverage and vanished. It's a crash that killed a national-level celebrity, triggered riots, forced police intervention at a tribute attended by over 14,000 people, and prompted departmental mourning. That's not "run-of-the-mill" and it's not "and finally" material. Colombian media didn't just report it once and move on — they published detailed follow-ups analyzing the preliminary report weeks later (for example, El Tiempo, which I quoted earlier). That'sWP:SIGCOV. That's literally the definition. You can call it routine all you want, but the sources say otherwise. I hope I’ve explained it clearly now.Shiningr3ds (talk)18:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining my point for me. The coverage is about Jiménez and not the accident, which is why it should be merged.11WB (talk)18:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this discussion isn't going to produce anything substantive at this point. I've provided specific sourcesthat analyze the preliminary report of the crash itself, not just Jiménez's biography. You've repeatedly ignored them. You're right aboutWP:BLUDGEONING, so this will be my last message in this thread. If you need to reach me, use my talk page. I just hope that the administrator drawing conclusions will make balanced judgments based on reading the arguments I provided. My position is clearly stated. I'm fully prepared for a potential AfD relist — the article will stand on the same sources. I filed aWP:CR request a few days ago because I believed consensus had shifted toward keeping the article. Clearly, that's not the case. I'll wait for an impartial close.Shiningr3ds (talk)18:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the reason I supported the merger is because I deem it notable. If I didn't, I would have suggested deleting it. I just didn't think it was notable enough to warrant a standalone page. I wanted to throw my hat in the ring; however, whatever the outcome, I will feel the correct decision was made based on the discussion.Frequentflyer93 (talk)19:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per above. The crash is notable for who was on it, not for any other reason, and there aren't sufficient things to say about it separate from what can be summarised in that individual's article. ClearWP:NOPAGE scenario. — Amakuru (talk)08:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge perWP:GNG andWP:EVENTCRIT – PerWP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources weresecondary since none of them containedanalysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. All sources simply narrate the event without providing anything beyond that. One month on, there has yet to be anyin-depth coverage.WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. In the event that the plane crash receives the necessary coverage, an article could be recreated/restored, but I feel that underWP:PAGEDECIDE, it is best covered here.Aviationwikiflight (talk)13:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I propose mergingObi-Wan Kenobi Street intoObi-Wan Kenobi. I would say that the only reason Obi-Wan Kenobi Street exists (and the only reason the WP page about it exists) is because the character is notable, so all the content on the very short Street page can fit comfortably into the Obi-Wan page.OrdinaryOtter (talk)01:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It's a separate street with a separate history. I would mention the street in a "Legacy" section or similar, not merge them.TheTechie[she/they] |talk?20:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I propose mergingList of Lebanese in Syrian jails intoLebanese detainees in Syria. Specifically, I suggest moving the "Responses" and "External links" sections to this article before deleting the rest. Creating a standalone article made sense when the list was much longer, but since the number of people on the list that can be cited to reliable sources is so short, I don't think a separate list makes sense.SomeoneDreaming (talk)01:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this should definitely be done as the other article is very bare-bones.
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Suggestion: It is a sub-region within the Wyoming Valley. There are prominent groups and organizations (Chamber of Commerce) in the area with the title "Greater Pittston". I don't know how much of the "Greater Pittston" article (pictures and wording), which has been around for decades on Wikipedia, will be shifted into the "Pittston" article. How much will be left out?
The sub-region is very culturally linked together.
"The article does not provide any reliable sources using this term [Greater Pittston]". If sources were provided, would that provide enough weight to keep the article?
I think that is a good suggestion to change to a sub-region. And yes, if we find reliable sources referring to Greater Pittston, that would really affirm the article as being sufficient. The main need right now is for improved citations.
My issue is, certainly areas like Greater Scranton or Greater Wilkes-Barre are more notable than Greater Pittston, so I'm really just trying to understand why those areas don't have their own pages and this one does. It could just be because no one has gotten to creating it yet, which is perfectly fine.Red0ctober22 (talk)00:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You make an excellent point regarding Greater Scranton and Greater Wilkes-Barre. It may be that no one got around to creating those pages just yet.
I have added just shy of a dozen sources mentioning "Greater Pittston".
I have also classified it as a sub-region within the Wyoming Valley.
I propose merging into this pageSigemund the Wælsing. This is widely seen as the same figure as Sigmund, just in an English attestation. This page is quite short and can easily incorporate the material from the other page and it'd be useful to discuss them both in the same place.Ingwina (talk)07:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do you have a source that you could cite for that in the merged article? Would you merge it to a section or wholly integrate the source article?ScrubbedFalcon (talk)16:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to redirect this title to the article on the parent company:Stillfront Group. I propose this because:
the references (almost all of which are the org's own website) do not establish independent notability,
almost none of the text is cited; And that which is referenced is supported only by non-independent blog posts (to the extent that, if this title was reduced to what could be reliably/independently supported, it would be incrediblySHORTTEXT that easily be coveredWITHIN theStillfront Group#Studios section)
it is unclear how three separate articles (one on this company's parent org, one on its flagship game (Imperia Online) and one covering the studio itself) can all be reasonably sustained. As each significantlyOVERLAPs with the other.
WP:PRODUCT typically advises against having separate articles for a company and its products - unless each has received "sustained coverage in reliable independent secondary sources". Which clearly isn't the case here. (As, based on what we currently have, there is no evidence that the company has been the subject of ANY independent coverage....)
(and that's not even addressing the concern that this title has seemingly been created/expanded by COI editors with overtly promotional intent).
Support To me "structural chemistry" is that subfield of chemistry devoted to understanding and applying structure, while "chemical structure" is resulting understanding developed by that subfield. However considering the states of these articles, I would agree that merging content and having "chemical structure" redirect (with the{{R with possibilities}} apology) to a subsection ofStructural chemistry would be satisfactory.Johnjbarton (talk)02:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me, chemical structure focuses on drawing the 2D structure of a molecule, generally asmall molecule, although proteins can be represented by amino acids and DNA/RNA by base-pair letters. The current Structural chemistry article would need a lot of work to add the various techniques used to ascertain 3D structure. Some of them were in the article before recently edited, although I see the LLM influence that led to its pairing down. I'm leaning oppose because I see the topics as separate enough, i.e. "Chemical structure" is primarily 2D and "Structural chemistry" is 3D.Nnev66 (talk)18:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954 andJohnjbarton: Comment to Nnev66. I hear you, there is a nuance (or more) difference in "chem speak" between the Chemical structure vs Structural chemistry. Here is the predicament: maintenance and quality. The main contributor to this article was someone doing homework (user:Huberyshen). Chemical structure gets about 5-10 edits per year. Many or most of these editors, well intentioned as they are, would not know the difference between chemical structure and structural chemistry The editors in the ProjectChemistry are few. To make matters worse, the number of inorganic chemists are fewer still. Ultimately the core content of structural chem is inorganic (and materials science): packing, iconic motifs, dimensionality, structure-property relationships (off the top of my head). One might say, "well what about organic structures?" At the risk of being dismissive, organic structural chemistry is chump change relatively speaking because organic is so dominated by molecular chemistry, electronic structure is simple, and intermolecular interactions are flimsy. I digress. So, it would be a lot easier to have one good article. Also, already the articles overlap. --Smokefoot (talk)21:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I'm just sharing how I've heard the term used amongst chemists, and that's the reason I hesitate to merge the articles. The reason I labeled what I wrote as "Comment" rather than "Oppose" or "Weak oppose" was because I understand the term "chemical structure" can mean 2D or 3D.Nnev66 (talk)19:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing thatHertzsprung gap be merged intosubgiant, specifically the "Mass 1 to 8 M☉" section. The Hertzsprung gap article is basically a dictionary definition, that might fit better as part of a larger article as opposed to a standalone one.Wormsward (talk)12:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (favouring expansion of current article) perWP:POTENTIAL. I've been thinking about this since proposing aWP:MERGEPROP over aWP:BOLD merger, and I think I lean towards keeping. Textbooks like KWW devote nontrivial page counts to the gap, and the current article -- while being little more than a dictionary definition -- has quite a bit it doesn't cover. I'll give improving the article a go over the next ~24 hours.MrSeabody (talk)08:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I propose mergingRARRES1 intoTIG1. TIG1 (Tazarotene-induced gene-1) and RARRES1 (Retinoic Acid Receptor Responder 1) are two different names for the exact same gene. Merging them would not cause any article-size orweighting problems. I propose TIG1 be the article going forward, as TIG1 is the well-known and more published term for the gene and is the oldest article (TIG1 was started on 30 April 2007, while RARRES1 was bot created on 21 January 2008).Wikipedialuva (talk)09:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While desertion and conscription criris can sometimes talk about different sides of the same coin, so to speak, they often are about distinct things. Its true desrtion crisis stems from conscription one, but conscription crisis primarily concerns the front end of the manpower pipeline. Its focus is on the state's inability to fairly, efficiently, and legally recruit, mobilize, and train sufficient numbers of personnel. Key topics include mobilization laws, draft evasion, corruption in recruitment centers, exemptions, and the societal/political debate over who should serve.
Desertion crisis concerns the back end of military service. It focuses mostly on the illegal departure of already mobilized and trained soldiers from their units. (Like the notorious and widely described case of 155th Brigade) Article mostly talks about soldiers leaving the front (AWOL), refusal to return from leave, struggles with morale/mental health, state efforts to apprehend deserters, and the legal framework/consequences for deserters.F.Alexsandr (talk)16:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's all very well and good, but it is your personal opinion. Do you have any sources that agree with your assessment that the two issues are separate?TurboSuperA+[talk]10:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is you who proposed a merge, and the burden of proof is on you.WP:NOTMERGE advises against merging when separate topics have enough substance to be "expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles"
All three articels you have linked are detailed reports on the desertion crisis, not the conscription crisis, and they actually reinforce the need for separate articles. Mentions of mobilization are included only as background or contributing factors. For example Al Jazeera articel talks about the scale, legal consequences, and personal stories of desertion; RFE sbout the business of smuggling draft dodgers and deserters across the border; The Guardian about the frontline fatigue, poor command, and psychological toll causing soldiers to desert. These sources show the topics are deeply related but substantively different. Merging them would conflate two complex subjects and go againt the guideline against creating broad, 'clunky' articles.
As for your question here is one more article that treats the issues as separate:[29] Desertion and cosncription deal with different core problems: The conscription crisis is framed as a failure of state policy and civilian compliance while the desertion crisis is a failure of military conditions and unit cohesion (catastrophic casualty rates, lack of rotation, poor training)[30]F.Alexsandr (talk)17:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge of that article, there are not enough standalone references describing a ″Ukrainian desertion crisis″, it should be merged into this or other relevant articles where it can be covered in sections. It doesn't help that it appears to have been used as aWP:POVFORK. --TylerBurden (talk)18:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that I'm confident enough to make a judgment either way. They are definitely distinct topics, but at the same time, it's also true that they are interlinked parts of a wider manpower crisis.NHCLS (talk)05:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support a merge of the two. The desertion and conscription crises are part of a wider manpower crisis, of which there is a considerable amount of scholarship written on.Jebiguess (talk)01:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The question is really whether the Ukrainian desertion crisis is still notable, and clearly it is getting more so, rather than less, now that the Ukrainian government is providing official statistics on it, so it is gaining the attention of reliable news sources. The same is true of the conscription crisis. On the quite minor points above, desertion and draft dodging are very different things, the first usually punishable by imprisonment or death, the second often not even a serious crime. On his first day in office, 14 January,Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine's new Defense Minister, gave figures for both which had not been given before, some 200,000 AWOL and two million evading conscription. The scholarship mentioned byJebiguess has almost nothing to say about desertion, as the sources have been so limited. So oppose, onWP:N.Moonraker (talk)20:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I've never before seen an article that acknowledges in detail that the topic is a synonym of another taxon. Usually synonymic articles are accidents. Merge perWP:NSPECIES.
I would assume so, but I am no expert. I have started this thread precisely to consult other editors before embarking on a major restructuring that would be hard to undo. After all, this is just one article telling us so. Then, these species are so obscure that another detailed study is unlikely to come.Викидим (talk)19:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then, these species are so obscure that another detailed study is unlikely to come. Sadly, this applies to a great many of our articles on invertebrates. Too many scientists researching monkeys and nuthatches and not enough looking at crickets and slugs. I guess it has to do with grant funding as well. I wouldn't know, because I'm not in academia.Cremastra (talk·contribs)21:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If a merge discussion has beenclosed with consensus to merge, you can optionally list it here to attract editors interested in carrying out the merge. Any editor can then perform these merges by following themerging instructions.
To list a closed merge proposal, place thisat the bottom of this section:
Comment: Note that I'm not asking whether we should merge all of these or not. Since there is consensus to merge 4, we only need to figure out what to do with the rest. These four are to be merged anyways.FaviFake (talk)13:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: The list of the AfD discussions that led to consensus to merge can be found here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Dragonborn+assassin&namespace=4&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=100FaviFake (talk)14:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
