![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
It was great to see the count at 9,999 and heading down! Not that that can be guaranteed to last ... Klbrain ( talk) 17:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Just in case you too were surprised by the sudden appearance of a tail of old merge proposal, the discussion at Template talk:Merge school#Can anyone help? will add some context. So, a change on Template:Merge school. Klbrain ( talk) 21:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The consensus agreed to merge Wrigley Field ivy into Wrigley Field. However, I could not perform the merger, so I would like assistance please. Thank you. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This question was asked and the response was that a history merge was appropriate. Should that be done?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you merge two wikiprojects, namely Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-Stub and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub improvement? Jjjjjjdddddd ( talk) 08:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Matt Lauer regarding the AfD close to merge the spin-off article to the appropriate section in the main article per recent AfD close, presuming WP:Proposed_mergers#Requests_for_merge_assistance_and_feedback is the proper guideline to follow, unless there is another appropriate policy. Atsme 📞 📧 03:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Could somebody have a look at the discussion on this article's talk page and advise how best to proceed. A merge was carried out about 10 months ago after tagging the articles and a merge discussion on the target page however relevant projects were not notified and only one other editor commented agreeing with the proposer. When I discovered this a short while ago I asked at WP:SHIPS for comments. Subsequently, including myself 4 editors objected to the merge (one partially) and only the two original editors supported it so we have no consensus for undoing the merge but conversely there would have been no consensus to make the merge initially if projects were notified. Maybe an uninvolved editor with knowledge and experience of merging can resolve our deadlock Lyndaship ( talk) 07:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello merge experts. Please have a look at this new thread regarding how to go about with articles in the series:
The related WikiProjects have limited eyes, hence your input on those is much welcomed. (Your help in posting this in any other relevant place is also appreciated!) Thank you, Reh man 04:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
I propose that all new pages outside the article namespace are placed in the normal "Articles to be merged from [month year]" categories instead of the current Category:Items to be merged. Many of the items here are finished encyclopedic draft articles that people wanted to move into the article namespace. These drafts really should get the same attention as article mergers since they contain the same type of content as them. Another major type of content in the category are Wikipedia essays and MOS pages to be merged which also should be discussed and not hidden in a rarely visited category.
I do not suggest that we put the articles currently in Category:Items to be merged since this would be a waste of time, but including future articles in the main categories would only serve to cut down the wait time for new non-article mergers which currently has a backlog of around a decade. Trialpears ( talk) 20:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
A lot of the oldest merger proposals in the backlog are there due to no discussion having occured. This can happen under a lot of different circumstances, but one of the most common reasons, in my experience, is improper merge tags and non-exsistant discussion section. By making sure that all articles tagged for mergers have templates at both the destination and origin pages and working discussion section links I believe we could significantly reduce the amount of stale merger proposals.
To deal with these issues I suggest that we request a bot to discover these problems by finding pages where the tag doesn't link to a talk page section or places where only one of the involved pages have a merger tag. These pages would, at least originally, be added to a list that I and other people in the WikiProject could efficently solve the problems. In the future, when the bot has proven it's competency, this process could possibly be fully automated, however I do not have any qualifications to determine if that is feasible.
What do you think about this? I feel like the backlog problem is not limited to not only a lack of people performing the mergers, but also by too few participants in merger discussions and that this proposal could really help improve discussion participation. Trialpears 12:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
What I've done in the past few days:
More to come... wbm1058 ( talk) 16:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
More to come... wbm1058 ( talk) 20:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Continued in the next section... wbm1058 ( talk) 21:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
My bot also reports when two merge tags are on the same page. Sometimes competing proposals. This is something that the RMCD bot doesn't support; there can only be one active RM discussion at a time. If you want to request a move of A to C, you need to wait for the request to move A to B to close first, or suggest it as an alternative in the existing discussion. I'm not sure how gracefully my bot handles these.
[0] => Debt levels and flows [1] => Fault tolerance [2] => Stevie Ray Vaughan discography [3] => Customer attrition [4] => Customer retention [5] => Barbara Hoyt [6] => Steroidogenic acute regulatory protein [7] => Kaecilius [8] => Historical orders, decorations, and medals of France [9] => Orders, decorations, and medals of France [10] => Rotating savings and credit association [11] => Yeshivish [12] => Czarnica [13] => Męciny
Isn't THAT cute? About time we caught it! wbm1058 ( talk) 22:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Something else I've noticed. There are currently 18 pages where a rationale is given as (an unsupported) parameter in the merge template. Maybe we should start supporting this parameter? As a rationale for a "speedy merge" when the need is obvious, as more convenient than taking the time to open a discussion section on the talk page. – wbm1058 ( talk) 22:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
[0] => Chinsurah …… Same topic, was originally a redirect, turned into an article by a now-blocked user [1] => Hugli-Chuchura …… Chinsurah is about the same topic, was originally a redirect, turned into an article by a now-blocked user [2] => Live from Baghdad …… Unless this article grows immensely, the film and book can be covered on the same page. As this is the page without disambiguation, the content should be merged here, despite the other article being more extensive [3] => Double Dare (UK game show) …… Not notable enough for its own article, it goes unmentioned on inspiration's page [4] => Fairchild Dornier 328JET …… the 428JET is a 328JET stretch, not a new type [5] => MLA Handbook …… The MLA Handbook is just an abridged version of the MLA Style Manual, for students. [6] => MLA Style Manual …… The MLA Handbook is just an abridged version of the MLA Style Manual, for students. [7] => We …… much of this section is not found in "main" [8] => Milagro (votive) …… comment=This is simply a local name for an ex-voto [9] => Tama (votive) …… comment=Just the local name for an ex-voto [10] => Creolistics …… duplication [11] => Afghan Hound …… WP:CONTENTFORK. [12] => Business aircraft …… Business jets are a subset of Business aircraft [13] => Beechcraft Premier I …… undeveloped Premier I variant [14] => Pagination …… the lead of page numbering indicated these are the same topic: "process of applying a sequence of numbers (or letters, or roman numerals) to the pages of a book or other document" [15] => Rupnarainpur …… Same topic [16] => Rupnarayanpur …… Rupnarainpur is about the same topic [17] => Uttara Kosala …… Both articles seem to cover the exact same topic
Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#Category:Merge articles by quality. – Fayenatic London 08:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Would it be a good thing to make the whole process more automated, as is done with move proposals? In moves proposals, a user adds Template:Requested move to the talk page, and bots handle the tagging of the relevant pages. To me, this would eliminate a lot of the issues discussed in the previous section. - BilCat ( talk) 20:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
So, continuing my reporting that I started in the last section. Probably the most commonly-occuring issue is with editors misplacing merge templates on talk pages. Sometimes these are redundant to the tags on the articles, sometimes not. Many of these I move from the talk page to the article. I've been hesitant to update the templates to make this a "hard {{ error}}". I read this as the editors telling us something. So, evolving in the direction of requested moves is something I haven't ruled out, and still thinking about how to do that. In the meantime I keep periodically cleaning these up. I recently finished working through these:
[0] => Talk:Bridge (exercise) [1] => Talk:Bridge (grappling) [2] => Talk:Jonathan Freedland [3] => Talk:Binary plan [4] => Talk:Burghead [5] => Talk:Burning of the Clavie [6] => Talk:Public space protection order [7] => Talk:Tambov Rebellion [8] => Talk:Union of Working Peasants [9] => Talk:The Loud House/Archive 1 [10] => Talk:2018 German government crisis [11] => Talk:Fourth Merkel cabinet [12] => Talk:Minsk II [13] => Talk:Minsk Protocol [14] => Talk:Ring name [15] => Talk:Stage name [16] => Talk:Free body diagram [17] => Talk:Kinetic diagram [18] => Talk:Lotuko language [19] => Talk:Lotuko mythology [20] => Talk:Magic (Radio) [21] => Talk:Otuho people [22] => Talk:Modern architecture [23] => Talk:Cold-fX [24] => Talk:Delhi Mumbai Expressway [25] => Talk:Equisetidae [26] => Talk:Equisetopsida [27] => Talk:Flag of Palestine [28] => Talk:Flag of the Ba'ath Party [29] => Talk:John R. Rodman Arboretum [30] => Talk:Local Court of the Northern Territory [31] => Talk:Lycopodiidae [32] => Talk:Lycopodiophyta [33] => Talk:Lycopodiopsida [34] => Talk:Magistrates court (Northern Territory) [35] => Talk:Monster Mash & Battleship [36] => Talk:Mumbai Vadodara Expressway [37] => Talk:Ophioglossidae [38] => Talk:Pitzer College [39] => Talk:Psilotopsida [40] => Talk:Solent [41] => Talk:South Hampshire [42] => Talk:5G Evolution [43] => Talk:Business aircraft [44] => Talk:Fisker Inc. [45] => Talk:Bill Price [46] => Talk:Walcot, Oxfordshire [47] => Talk:William Price [48] => Talk:Belgium [49] => Talk:Chancellor of Germany [50] => Talk:Chancellor of Germany (German Empire) [51] => Talk:Chancellor of Germany (Weimar Republic) [52] => Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 7 [53] => Talk:Czechia [54] => Talk:Denmark/Archive 4 [55] => Talk:DIY ethic [56] => Talk:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [57] => Talk:Kingdom of Belgium [58] => Talk:Kingdom of Denmark [59] => Talk:Kingdom of Norway [60] => Talk:Norway/Archive 9 [61] => Talk:Pigmented villonodular synovitis [62] => Talk:Serbia and Montenegro/Archive 3 [63] => Talk:Swiss Confederation [64] => Talk:Switzerland [65] => Talk:V774104
Some of them seem to have been trolling (proposals to merge talk pages, not articles, which is out-of-scope), but most of these edits were made in good faith. – wbm1058 ( talk) 21:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
There was a
Template:Merge discussion, which was deleted in 2012 (
discussion). Perhaps the lack of a template designed for use on talk pages causes some editors to sometimes misplace the article tags on talk. This is what the template looked like (
look familiar?) It had code obviously copied from the RM template, including the
that isn't used on Project Merge:
![]() | It has been proposed in this section that
Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge/Archive 3 be
merged.
Remember to base arguments on article title policy, and to keep discussion succinct and civil. Simply add {{ merge discussion}} to merger discussions; when consensus is reached, remove this template. |
I have made an edit request to the merge templates to add a nocat options, which would enable more convenient clean up of Category:Items to be merged. There has been a request to gather consensus for this change and I encourage you to comment on this proposal. Trialpears ( talk) 16:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, There's talk about possibly merging WP:MCB + WP:GEN + WP:BIOP + WP:COMBIO → WWP:GMCB. I've a few questions about how to best go about doing so that I asked over at T:ikiProject_Council before I'd come across this page. Any ideas appreciated! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to go to relist a merger proposal, so I'm coming here. I'd like to see some more eyes on the proposal to merge World Ocean to Sea, given that the latter is a FA and level 2 vital article. - Sdkb ( talk) 07:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I invite editors to participate in a request for comment on Talk:Burson-Marsteller. I am looking to get a feel for how Wikipedia editors think the merger between Burson-Marsteller and Cohn & Wolfe should be addressed. As an employee of BCW (Burson Cohn & Wolfe), I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Thank you. BCW Editor ( talk) 19:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Discuss here.-- MaoGo ( talk) 17:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I have started a proposal to add mergers and splits to article alerts. Please see Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Feature requests#Mergers and Splits (2019) for the discussion. Trialpears ( talk) 21:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, WikiProject Merge members. In May, GenQuest merged the Burson-Marsteller and Cohn & Wolfe articles and moved the combined article to Burson Cohn & Wolfe. If time allows, can editors consider my request to add a new infobox for the combined company to the article? As an employee of BCW, I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which is why I'm requesting assistance from others. Thank you. BCW Editor ( talk) 20:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I have recently been working on template mergers and was wondering if there would be any use implementing a holding cell where articles with consensus to merge are listed until the merger is actually performed. I believe this would help mergers get done as our current category for mergers with pre-exsisting consensus, Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion, is significantly less backlogged then the rest of the merge system and ocassionally even empty. I think the system works really well for templates, but would like some input before implementing it. -- Trialpears ( talk) 17:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:Proposed article splits to be moved to Wikipedia:Proposed splits. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to inform you all of this script request at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests#Script for Merging articles easily. -- Trialpears ( talk) 21:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello. There was a discussion following a proposed merger (
Talk:ITS launch vehicle#Merger proposal) if merged, it would be: ITS into the BFR (rocket) article).
The discussion ran its course, as well as the waiting time period. I am requesting that an experienced and uninvolved editor makes the final call. Thank you.
Rowan Forest (
talk)
17:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to be moved to Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 12:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I am still looking to clean up the Burson Cohn & Wolfe article following the merger of the Burson-Marsteller and Cohn & Wolfe articles. Can an editor interested in merging articles review my request to restructure a portion of the article for clarification? Specifically, you might want to review a draft that shows exactly how my proposed changes would change the article. As an employee of BCW, I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which is why I'm requesting assistance from others. Thank you. BCW Editor ( talk) 14:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I want to thank everyone for all your help in merging and cleaning up Burson Cohn & Wolfe. I have one more request for editors to consider following the merge of the Burson-Marsteller and Cohn & Wolfe articles. Following this request, the article should be much more clear. Thanks again to everyone for assisting! As an employee of BCW, I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which is why I'm requesting assistance here. BCW Editor ( talk) 16:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I propose that all new pages outside the article namespace are placed in the normal "Articles to be merged from [month year]" categories instead of the current Category:Items to be merged. Many of the items here are finished encyclopedic draft articles that people wanted to move into the article namespace. These drafts really should get the same attention as article mergers since they contain the same type of content as them. Another major type of content in the category are Wikipedia essays and MOS pages to be merged which also should be discussed and not hidden in a rarely visited category.
I do not suggest that we put the articles currently in Category:Items to be merged since this would be a waste of time, but including future articles in the main categories would only serve to cut down the wait time for new non-article mergers which currently has a backlog of around a decade. Trialpears ( talk) 20:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Question: what is meant here by non article namespace? GenQuest "Talk to Me" 12:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I prefer to focus just on the main namespace for now. The merging process for articles is complicated enough; adding support for other namespaces just further complicates processes, while we still don't really have a robust implementation of mainspace procedures yet. People really shouldn't be creating forks in draft space; rather they should just be working to improve existing articles. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I am still seeking help to finalize the merge of the Burson-Marsteller and Cohn & Wolfe articles into Burson Cohn & Wolfe. The work is almost done. Can editors here please review my final request?
Essentially, I am asking for editors to replace the duplicative standalone "Services" section with a new section called Operations, and add one additional article to See also.
Following this request, the article should be much more clear. The request is explained in more detail on the article Talk page. Thanks again to everyone for assisting. As an employee of BCW, I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which is why I'm being extra cautious and not finishing up these edits myself. I have focused on this WikiProject because my requests have fallen within its purview. However, if WikiProject members know of any other places that might be interested in pursuing this request, I welcome any advice. BCW Editor ( talk) 19:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Caroline, an employee of Dish Network (as disclosed on my profile page as well as the article's talk page). I've been working with editors at Talk:Dish Network to suggest updates and other changes to the company's Wikipedia entry. In my most recent request, I've identified significant redundancy between Dish_Network#Criticisms_and_controversies and Criticism of Dish Network. Much of this text was added by a banned editor who "abusively used multiple accounts". Since I can't engage in a discussion with this editor regarding possible changes to either article, I was hoping some editors here at WikiProject Merge might be willing to assist by trimming down redundant text and/or providing feedback on the talk page. Another editor, User:Kvng, has generally agreed that the current redundancies are problematic, but does not have time to fix the issue at this time. Thanks in advance for any help. CK-DISH ( talk) 21:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The process for nominating articles for merging has always struck me as extremely cumbersome, especially compared to processes like deletion noms which can be accomplished within clicks via Twinkle. Are there any tools available, or would anyone be willing to create them? Sdkb ( talk) 23:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
After getting pinged over at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 80#Adding reciprocal merge templates, I'm back to working on further incremental improvements to the bot.
Following up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 3#Pages where reasons are given in the template, I have added rationales (when specified) to the reports.
As this remains an undocumented parameter, only a few merge templates have reasons given. Here are the 10 pages where reasons are given in the template:
[0] => Pagination …… the lead of page numbering indicated these are the same topic: "process of applying a sequence of numbers (or letters, or roman numerals) to the pages of a book or other document" [1] => Rupnarainpur …… Same topic [2] => Rupnarayanpur …… Rupnarainpur is about the same topic [3] => Glåmdal …… The name Glommadal is not in use in Norwegian, and anything that is said here can also be said about Glåmdal. [4] => Kosala Kingdom …… Both articles seem to cover the exact same topic [5] => No Pants Day …… Appears to be closely related; both topics can be covered in one article [6] => Alhambra Decree …… Identical topics. [7] => Expulsion of Jews from Spain …… Identical topics. [8] => Turnkey supplier …… appears to describe exactly the same thing [9] => 2019 Qatar T10 League …… This is only the first seasons. Year article should be created and split from the League years down the road
These merge proposals can be found in the lists:
— wbm1058 ( talk) 14:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is consensus to merge but as I am a contributor I don't wish to close the discussion (which has been silent for over a month). Would anyone care to take a look at it and close it? Thanks - -- Smerus ( talk) 11:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Merge:
I hope that an administrator here could give us some guidance and provide some remedial action to get us wiki-fencing editors back on track procedurally. At Talk:Anglo-French War (1778-1783)#Merge proposal there is an initiative that is amiss procedurally. It should have initiated at the target article, " France in the American Revolutionary War".
It is initiated by editors appealing to the precedent in an earlier merger of " Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1783)" into " Spain in the American Revolutionary War". Over the past two months or so, after reading into three dozens of their sources using extended passages (or entire out-of-print books) available online, I am disagreed with both efforts to conflate the “European war 1778-1783” (their Simms, my Morris) with the "American Revolutionary War 1775-1783" among British subjects in North America & North Atlantic (Encyclopedia Britannica, Routledge Dictionary of War).
A summary of my understanding of procedure and article titles can be found there at " NOTES ON PROCEDURE", " Wikipedia article titles", and " Merging by edit". - Sincerely - TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 09:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Template:Being merged has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Merging. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
JsfasdF252 (
talk)
05:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Articles to be merge backlog ( Articles to be merged) finally hits 1 year ... I wonder when that was last the case! Klbrain ( talk) 12:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Here are our current goals and my comments:
~ Kvng ( talk) 14:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I would be grateful if an uninvolved editor could look at the proposed merge of
Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events into
Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (to state the obvious I'm involved). Thankyou.
Djm-leighpark (
talk) 18:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC) It's been closed. Done.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
18:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Immaculate Conception (churches)#Merger discussion
I've added the to/from templates, but don't have the spoons to do all the notifications etc (especially on mobile). I'd appreciate if someone could finish the gnoming. Sai ¿? ✍ 12:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Merging § Be bold. --
Trialpears (
talk)
17:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
When merging talk pages, should the wiki ed banners be copied to the destination page? I can't find any guidance on it (which is fair, honestly). My feeling is, because the material that was part of those courses has been replicated at the destination, the courses should be attributed there too. But that depends on why those banners are still included on any talk pages after the assignment is completed, and I can't actually find the reasoning behind it. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 01:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I know there is a script to add attribution and do other cleanup on completion of a merge. I think it is called easy merge. Can someone help me find it? ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I have some major concerns about the criteria for delisting merge proposals less than 1 year old. While I totally understand the need to cleanup old (> 6 months with no activity) discussions, the current wording suggests that young proposals may be delisted if any of the criteria apply, including:
which suggests that any proposal with no discussion after 2 weeks should be closed as not merged due to lack of consensus, when the directions under "Closing merge discussion" just a bit further down state:
Herein lies the inconsistency, if WP:SILENCE can be taken as consensus to proceed with a merge as proposed after 2 weeks, a discussion cannot and should not be closed without a merge taking place after the same amount of time. I and others open merge discussions to check for any objections and often leave them open for months before coming back around and proceeding with the merge. Such merge discussions should not be closed unless the closer wishes to proceed with the merge. Otherwise, they could choose to join the discussion and support or oppose the merge, and then the discussion would no longer be stale.
It seems like this criterion (being open for at least two weeks without discussion) must be met for a stale close, but by itself is not a sufficient reason for a close. This must be clarified.
The other criteria for closing a young proposal make little sense either on their own. If someone believes that "neither article would benefit from a straight merge with redirect" or there is an "unreasonable merge to destination/target" then they should say so in the discussion with an oppose vote. They should not unilaterally decide that because they think the merge is ill-advised, that their opinion matters more than the nominator's and the discussion should be closed. Instead, the user's opposition should be stated, and then if there is no further discussion, someone else (possibly the original nominator) should close the discussion as no consensus, which defaults to no merge.
Lastly, the statement "as well as additional standards for newer proposals" needs to be defined. Mdewman6 ( talk) 03:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I have made changes to the project page (well, to the transcluded template) according to the discussion here, revising the definition of a stale proposal and better integrating those criteria with the rest of the instructions. Hopefully this will result in less confusion going forward. Feel free to improve or comment here. Cheers, Mdewman6 ( talk) 00:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)