From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


Granted, I'm a fairly serious jerk when it comes to language, but I can parse the article's language thusly:

Furthermore, some Mergists
  • also believe that rampant Inclusionism and Deletionism are both harmful to the Wikipedia and,
  • as a whole, accomplish very little other than to muddy the water.

No one is likely to go away misunderstanding, but the brain is hardwired to spot ambiguities, and there's some cost to each reader if you let it persist. Often, ambiguous syntax is a miner's canary whose best fix is two sentences. --Jerzy 18:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is correct to say mergism is, so to say, "at the center" of the deletionist-inclusionist divide. Rather, it is its own, distinct philosophy which is about as related to both inclusionism and deletionism as they are to each other. Calling it a moderate position is akin to saying Libetarians are moderates compared to liberals and conservatives. It is almost certain that an block of text merged into an article will recieve less attention than if it has its own article (unless the information had been basically abandoned to begin with and/or was merged into an incredibly active article) and merging does nothing to remedy the deletionist's distaste for "garbage." He/she might even find the situation worse.
This article states that "some Mergists also believe that rampant Inclusionism and Deletionism are both harmful to the Wikipedia." Well, wouldn't an inclusionist or deletionist believe that rampant mergism (i.e. rolling all the battles in the French & Indian War into one article) harmful to Wikipedia, both for their own reasons? It would be better to address these things in terms of how the mergist see themselves, rather that "nuetrally" claiming this. -Anonymous Coward 2012

Redirect to anchors[edit]

Very recently, the developers added the ability to redirect to a specific section of a page. I think this could be a boon for mergists, and hopefully will take a little bit of the focus away from inclusion/deletion. --Interiot 19:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam, another reason to merge[edit]

Fewer, more comprehensive articles are better monitored and more quicky cleaned up. As of this writing, en:Wikipedia has >1.5 million articles. See this January 2007 discussion, en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Teaching English as a second language -- spambait articles, about a whole family of articles, many with problems and the majority with spam. --A. B. (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Just out of curiosity, is there technically a philosophy that counteracts with Mergism? There doesn't seem to be even though the other philosophies have some.--Wizardman 22:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently it is called either separatism or splittism. I'm trying to resolve this confusian and, appropriately enough for this talk page, MERGE the two terms, as one has a philosophical article and yet the appropriate organization (which you will find the splittism link redirects to at present, the Association of Splittist Wikipedians) is named by the other. Tyciol 22:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be merged with separatism at once. 07:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patent nonsense[edit]

The link to the humour page of Meta does not make sense. The sentence is referring to really patent nonsense 13:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Wikidata a site that made a lot of such-ism peoples?[edit]

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]