GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

GeezerVison is showing en.wikipedia.org — Wikipedia:Merging - Wikipedia

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages)

"WP:MERGE" redirects here. For the WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge. For merging page histories, see Wikipedia:History merging.

This is an information page.

It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect varying levels of consensus.

A merge or merger is the process of uniting two or more articles into a single article. It is done by copying some or all content from the source article(s) into the destination article and then replacing the source article with a redirect to the destination article.

Nominating articles for merging

Any editor can perform a merge. If merging is obviously needed and is not controversial, editors are encouraged to be bold and simply do it themselves by following the merging instructions below. You do not need anyone's permission or prior discussion to proceed, especially if the merge satisfies one or more of the reasons to merge articles. While bold merges may be reverted entirely, the process and the discussion after the revert often result in better articles. (However, if there is an open AfD discussion for the article—whether it is for merging or otherwise—wait for it to be closed before merging.)

If you have reason to believe that merging an article is controversial, nominate it for merging at AfD. If you want to nominate more than one article for merging into one or more destination articles, you can do so in the same nomination! The main reason that the merge backlog includes hundreds of articles is because the people who support the merge neglect to undertake this final step. Any editor, including the editor who originally proposed the merge, is permitted to perform a merge in accordance with consensus, as merging articles does not require intervention from an administrator.

While young or short articles and stubs that only differ in wording should be boldly merged immediately, long and well-developed articles that concern controversial topics are often discussed first. If you want to first gauge whether there is opposition to a potential merge or want to hear other editors' opinions before nominating the article, you can seek input through standard consensus-building venues, such as the destination article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion.

Reasons to merge articles

Further information: § Guidelines on merging

There are several good reasons to merge articles:

"WP:DUPLICATE" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:Duplicate (disambiguation).

Duplicate: There are two or more articles on the same subject and with the same scope, also known as redundant content forks. If the content fork was unjustified, the article created more recently should be merged into the older one. If a duplicate article was created recently, it may also be a candidate for A10 speedy deletion.
Overlap: There are two or more articles on related subjects that have a large overlap and might be redundant. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability.
Short text: If an article is short and, in your opinion as editor, is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it into the article on the broader topic.
Context: Some topics that are independently notable are best covered in the same article in order to better serve reader understanding. For example, if a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it, it can be merged into the broader article.
Insufficient notability: Articles about non-notable topics can have content which if added to another article would make that article better. For example, relatives of celebrities who are otherwise not notable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity.

Merging should be avoided if:

The resulting article would be too long or "clunky"; see § When to merge large articles.
The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles; see § When to merge short articles
Readers would be best served by standalone articles about notable topics; see § When to merge a notable topic

Procedure

To avoid manually making some repetitive and time-consuming edits, it is recommended to install the easy-merge script before proceeding; the instructions below will also explain when and how to use it. When performing a merge, remember to attribute copied content as required by copyright; at minimum, this means including a wikilink to the source article in your edit summaries, as described below. To merge two articles, follow these steps:

Copy all or some of the content from the source article and paste it in an appropriate location at the destination article.^[a] Then, immediately publish your edit, even if it duplicates some parts or it looks messy. In your edit summary, include a link to the source article and to the AfD discussion (unless this is a bold merge):
[[H:M|Merged content]] from [[ SOURCE ARTICLE ]]; see its history for [[WP:CWW|attribution]].
Do any necessary rearranging and copy editing ideally in a second edit, to simplify attribution. In this edit, also remove any leftover templates from the destination article, like {{Being merged from}} or {{In use}}.
Finally, blank the source article whose content was just merged and replace it with a redirect
- To do this more quickly, install the easy-merge script and reload the source article. Then, click the "easy-merge" link in the "Tools" section of your sidebar, enter the name of the destination article or section, and keep this option enabled:
  Redirect this page to the target page
If you want to enable other options, read the optional step 5 below before clicking Submit.
- To do it manually instead, replace everything in the source article with:
```
#REDIRECT [[ DESTINATION ARTICLE ]]

{{R cat|
{{R from merge}}
}}
```
  or, if you merged the content to a section:
```
#REDIRECT [[ DESTINATION ARTICLE#SECTION NAME ]]

{{R cat|
{{R from merge}}
{{R to section}}
}}
```
  Then, publish your changes. If the merge was discussed, you can include a link to it in your edit summary:
  [[H:M|Merged content]] into [[ DESTINATION ARTICLE ]].

And that's it! You've successfully merged two articles!

Optional steps

These additional steps are not necessary nor required:

If the source article has a talk page, reconcile the talk page banners. Move any previously added {{Merged-from}} and {{Copied}} templates to the destination's talk page and copy the various {{WikiProject}} templates to the destination. If the merge was discussed at AfD but you are merging it to a different destination than the one selected by the closer, remove the {{Afd-merge from}} template from the talk page of the destination selected by the closer.
Tag the talk pages with the relevant notices for posterity.
1. If the merge was not discussed at Articles for deletion (for example if it's a bold merge or if it was discussed elsewhere), you can optionally note that the merge has taken place by adding a tag to the articles' talk pages:
  - This action is performed automatically when using the easy-merge script; simply enable these two options and click Submit:
  - To do it manually, place {{Merged-from|SOURCE ARTICLE|November 2026}} atop the destination's talk page and {{Merged-to|DESTINATION ARTICLE|November 2026}} atop the source's talk page.^[b]
2. However, if the merge was discussed at AfD and the {{Afd-merge from}} template is already on the destination's talk page, do not add another banner to the destination's talk page. However, you can optionally add a tag to the source article's talk page:
  - If you are using the easy-merge script, simply keep this option disabled:
    You can optionally enable the other one, and then click Submit.
  - To do it manually, place {{Merged-to|DESTINATION ARTICLE|November 2026}} atop the source's talk page.
Check whether you have moved any non-free files to the destination article. In the rare cases where there are any, the article mentioned in the rationale should be updated to the destination article's per the non-free content criteria. You can recognise non-free files from their file descriptions, as they have a red copyright icon and a non-free use rationale (a summary box with Non-free use rationale in the title, or a Fair use section: see these examples).
Fix any double redirects found at Special:WhatLinksHere. There are a few bots that do this automatically, but it may take a few hours.

If you've performed these optional steps, there's nothing else you can possibly do, besides improving the article further or merging another article!

When the merge is a result of a formal discussion at Articles for deletion, editors should not add a new banner to the destination's talk page or change the existing one (see the optional step 5b above). These notices are usually added automatically by the closer and are updated automatically by AnomieBOT several hours after the merge is complete (example diff). These templates inform users involved in those pages that content is to be merged as a result of an AfD discussion. Note that it is any editors' job, not necessarily the closing editors' job, to perform the merge. If these templates have been changed, removed, or if they are not already on the talk pages, you can optionally place this atop the source article's talk page:

{{Afd-merge to |DESTINATION ARTICLE |discuss=AFDDISCUSSION |date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} }}

Similarly, you can place this template atop the destination's talk page:

{{Afd-merge from |SOURCE ARTICLE |discuss=AFDDISCUSSION |date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} }}

Guidelines on merging

When to merge a notable topic

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia:Notability § Whether to create standalone pages.[edit]

When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes.

Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign § International trip, for example). Other times, standalone pages are well justified (as with President of the United States as well as standalone biographies of every individual President). One should particularly consider due and undue weight. Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept.
Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City).
What sourcing is available now? When a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. On the other hand, an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page (see also the essays Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). Sometimes, when information about a future event is scarce, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Other times, a future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens (such as the next upcoming Summer Olympics). However, before creating such an article, make sure that the likelihood of the future event occurring is reasonably assured. For example, the WikiProject Film strongly recommends that a standalone article for a new film be created only if reliable sources confirm that principal photography for the film has commenced (which makes it very likely the film will be completed).

Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas. When a standalone page is created, it can be spun off from a broader page. Conversely, when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap).

When to merge articles about the same topic

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia:Content forks § Pages of the same type on the same subject.[edit]

It becomes a problem when there are two articles about the exact same thing, or any two pages of the same type covering the same thing as each other, such as two outlines, two portals, two templates, two categories, etc. Imagine if 30 editors each wrote a separate article on the Moon and Wikipedia displayed them all. That would defeat the collaborative purpose of the wiki, and it would make managing information on the Moon 30 times more difficult.

A page that covers the same subject as another page of the same type is often called a "redundant content fork".^[c] The most common occurrence of redundant content forks results in two articles on the same thing; the extra one is a "redundant article fork". Redundant content forks of page types other than articles are rarer, but they do occur.

Here are some examples of pages of the same type on the same subject:

An article about domestic house cats would be an unacceptable content fork of the existing article Cat (which is about domestic house cats).
An outline of the People's Republic of China would be an unacceptable content fork of the existing Outline of China (which is about the People's Republic of China).

Although Wikipedia contributors are reminded to check whether there is an existing article on the subject before they start a new article, there is always the chance they will fail to find an existing article, forget to check, or simply flesh out a derivative article rather than the main article on a topic. If you suspect a redundant article fork, check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was justified. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged into the main article.

When to merge short articles

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia:Summary style § Non-notable topics and relocating material.[edit]

Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criteria nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. In this case, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the parent article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability and thus can be split off into their own article. Also consider whether a concept can be cleanly trimmed, removed, or merged elsewhere on Wikipedia instead of creating a new article. Some topics are notable, but do not need their own article.

If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. It is not uncommon for editors to suggest that articles nominated for deletion instead be merged into a parent article. Note that notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list because notability guidelines do not apply to article content.

When to merge long articles

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia:Article size § Size guideline.[edit]

These rules of thumb are intended to be approximate and apply only to readable prose – not to wiki markup size (as found via the page history or other means). These rules of thumb apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages and naturally do not apply to redirects. Some useful rules of thumb for splitting, trimming or merging articles:

Readable prose	What to do
> 15,000 words	Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.
> 9,000 words	Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.
> 8,000 words	May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size.
< 6,000 words	Length alone does not justify division or trimming. 98.5% of all Wikipedia articles and 76% of all Wikipedia:Featured articles are shorter than this.
< 150 words	If an article or list has remained this size for over two months, consider merging it with a related article. Alternatively, the article could be expanded; see Wikipedia:Stub.

Most articles on Wikipedia are stubs or otherwise short articles. As of 2024, article lengths had this distribution:

Measures of article size
Percentile ranking	1	10	20	30	40	50	60	70	80	90	95	99	99.9
Number of words	20	50	100	150	250	350	450	650	950	1,700	2,700	7,000	16,000
Sentences	1	2	4	6	9	13	18	24	35	60	95	235	500
References	0	1	1	2	3	4	5	7	11	20	30	85	200
Links to other articles	2	7	10	14	18	23	30	40	55	95	150	500	850

If an article is in the top 1% (99th percentile) or higher for number of words or sentences, you should consider whether the article needs copy editing to omit needless words and maintain encyclopedic concision, or if it might need to be split. If the article is in the top 0.1%, then it almost certainly needs to be split or trimmed. When considering splitting lists, consider the impact of breaking up a sortable table.

Merging pages in non-article namespaces

Pages in certain other namespaces can also be merged, usually also on a bold basis, but merging on a consensus basis relies on different venues. Most templates can be explicitly nominated for merging at Templates for discussion. The Categories for discussion process governs category merges; these fall entirely outside the scope of this page because "merging" categories is not merging in the usual sense (and is not done boldly either). For most other namespaces, the counterpart to AfD is Miscellany for deletion, which does not accept merge nominations; for controversial proposals to merge miscellaneous pages, alternative means of publicizing discussion have to be used.^[d] However, a deletion discussion at that venue can yield "merge" as an alternative to deletion.

Notes

↑ If the merge is very large and will take you a long time to fully clean up, you can let other editors know by placing the {{In use}} notice atop the destination article.
↑ To collapse many similar merge banners into one, experienced users may alternatively place the {{Copied}} template atop one or both talk pages: {{Copied |merge=yes |from= |from_oldid= |to= |to_oldid= |to_diff= |date=November 2026}}
↑ Note that "redundant content fork" is an idiom, not to be taken literally. All content forks are redundant, that's their nature, even the acceptable ones, but we use the term "redundant content fork" to refer to the specific kind described in this section.
↑ A 2026 RfC resulted in no consensus to allow miscellaneous merges at MfD, nor on mandating any specific alternative method for discussing miscellaneous merges.