Talk:Association of Mergist Wikipedians

Archives /Archive 1 /Archive 2

Found this in the icon directory

Found it at Wikimedia Icons. Cwolfsheep 02:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Found this: ... somewhere.

7h3 3L173 ('Pedia / 'Source) 05:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a mergist barnstar?

If not, there should be. We sew articles together elaborately, like a highly skilled merge surgeon, or MERGEON, so I propose me call the Mergist barnstar the "Mergeon barnstar."  :-) NickDupree 03:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Your logo has been removed

In case you didn't notice, your article says "Our logo is ..." but you no longer have a logo. It has been deleted because a source was missing. --82.171.70.54 04:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process

There needs to be better checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion, to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Wikipedia article deletion guidelines. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being injustly deleted. It's easy to nominate an article for deletion and then type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute nominations. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing a just rationale for doing so, and can instead simply base the nomination upon basic, generic and inspecific statements such as "doesn't pass general notability guidelines", while not specifically stating which parts of the guidelines they are supposedly referring to. If nobody comes along to correct an injust or baseless nomination, the article is then deleted based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Wikipedia, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: an article is nominated for deletion and an AfD entry is created, a generic rationale is provided to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability. Afterward, if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, the article is deleted. It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, while disregarding the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article in which the topic is actually notable, nominated per generic statements and without the required source searching prior to nomination, then the article disappears. Hopefully Wikipedia can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of easily accomplished, simple censorship. One idea is to include a requirement prior to article nomination for deletion in which the nominator has to state, or check-box on a template, that they've performed the required minimum search in Google Books and in the Google News Archive required by WP:BEFORE, and in Google Scholar for academic subjects, as suggested in WP:BEFORE. This would be a simple addition to the AfD nomination process that would add significant integrity to the process, and would also encourage users to follow the proper procedures.

Please place responses regarding this matter here on this Association of Mergist Wikipedians Discussion page below, rather than on my personal talk page. In this manner, other users can view and respond to responses. Thank you. Northamerica1000 06:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: There's also a discussion currently occurring regarding this topic at: Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion - Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process. Northamerica1000 14:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

New essay about merging and keeping small articles

I've written a new essay called Every snowflake is unique, which favors merging several small articles that would have been otherwise deleted. It's based on the exclusionist philosophy to erase superfluous content but keep what is verifiable. I think it's related to the issues going around recently about the Articles for Deletion discussion processes (such the need for Checks and Balances stated above and the recent deletion of the Rescue template since it gives new arguments to some common discussions. Any contribution to review and give comment about this essay is welcome. Diego Moya 17:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

2004-11-27 - 2019-11-27

We can celebrate 15 years AMW. Question is how? Ideas more than welcome. #tia two and a half months to think about.  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  21:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this project still active?

I see more and more duplication at Wikipedia, so that often the best result for Wikipedia can be reached by merging. But that's a lot of work. That there are some people so dedicated to merging that they would call themselves “mergists” gives me some hope. I could imagine such an association could provide mutual support for this hard work. Sadly, though, it seems this association hasn't been active in recent years. So it seems I need to write a message here similar to what I already wrote on Talk:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians and Talk:Association of Exclusionist Wikipedians:

Is this project still active? Or can it be merged anywhere else? Otherwise, I suggest marking it as historical. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Merger via AfD procedure under discussion

People here might be interested in my suggestion that similar processes to WP:MERGE should apply at AfD. Kevin McE (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)