Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers

"WP:PM" redirects here. For the user right, see Wikipedia:Page mover. For other uses, see WP:PM (disambiguation).

Prior to being merged into AfD, the Proposed article mergers process was used to create and close new merge proposals. To begin new merge discussion, editors followed the now-historical instructions at § Historical merge proposal procedure. If a merge is unlikely to be contested, you can still be bold and complete it without initiating a discussion. If you have reason to believe that merging an article could be controversial, nominate it for merging at AfD. If you want to nominate more than one article for merging, you can do so in the same nomination.

Historical merge proposal process

On 24 March 2026, there was consensus to merge the proposed article mergers (PAM) process into AfD. What follows is the historical process for creating and conducting formal merge discussions, prior to the merge with AfD. As some pages are still using the old process, steps 3-5 are still relevant to the process.

Step 1: Create a discussion

This is usually done on the proposed destination page's talk page. For example, if suggesting that Source page be merged into Destination page, create a proposal in a new section at Talk:Destination page. If the destination does not exist, do not create its talk page.

Create a new topic and include the list of the affected pages and a merge rationale. For example:

== Merge proposal ==
I propose merging [[SOURCEPAGES]] into [[DESTINATIONPAGE]]. I think the content in SOURCEPAGE can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or [[WP:UNDUE|weighting]] problems. ~~~~

If a merge proposal has been incorrectly created on the source's talk page and the proposed destination is unambiguous and exists, any editor can move the discussion to the talk page of the destination page, to increase its visibility. Use the {{Moved to}} and {{Moved from}} templates.

Optionally, you can notify contributors to the pages involved. One way is to ping them in a comment on the merge proposal, such as {{ping|User1|User2|User3|...}} Notifying contributors to the articles. ~~~~. Alternatively, create a new topic on those users' talk pages with {{subst:Mergenote|PAGENAME|Talk:PAGENAME#Merge proposal}}. Respect neutrality when making invitations to participate in the discussion; selectively notifying editors is not allowed.

Step 2: Tag the relevant pages

To propose merging:

• two articles together: place {{Merge to|DESTINATIONPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merge proposal|date=July 2026}} at the top of the source page, and {{Merge from|SOURCEPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merge proposal|date=July 2026}} at the top of the proposed destination article or section.
  • If you don't already know which article should be merged and which should remain, place {{Merge|OTHERPAGE|discuss=Talk:PAGE#Merge proposal|date=July 2026}} on both pages.

• many articles into an existing article: place {{Merge|OTHERSOURCEPAGES|...|target=DESTINATIONPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merge proposal|date=July 2026}} on all source pages, and {{Merge from|SOURCEPAGE1|SOURCEPAGE2|...|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merge proposal|date=July 2026}} at the top of the proposed destination article or section.

• many articles into a page that doesn't exist yet: place {{Merge|target=DESTINATIONPAGE|SOURCEPAGE1|SOURCEPAGE2|...|discuss=Talk:SOURCEPAGE#Merge proposal|date=July 2026}} on each source page.

Always use the |discuss= parameter to link to the same discussion on all pages; otherwise, two separate discussions could take place.

Step 3: Discuss the merge

Make sure to follow standard talk page guidelines and be clear and concise. Usually, a hybrid discussion/straw poll is used, but remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Example:

* '''Merge''' – The scope of the articles is the same.  ~~~~
* '''Don't merge''' – The resulting article would be too long. ~~~~

During the course of the discussion, editors may suggest merging pages that were not part of the original proposal. When this happens, add the merge templates to those additional pages and ensure that adequate time is provided for editors to comment before the discussion is closed.

Step 4: Close the discussion

During discussion, a rough consensus may emerge to proceed with the merge. Any user, including the user who first proposed the merge, may close the discussion and move forward with the merge if enough time has elapsed (normally 7 days or more) and the consensus is clear or there has been no discussion. Closing of merge discussions differs from closing of requested move discussions in that closings of uncontroversial merge discussions by involved users are allowed.

In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to merge has or has not been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merge proposal or the discussion. The discussion can be listed at the Proposed article mergers noticeboard to attract the attention of more editors. If necessary, you can request that an uninvolved editor close the discussion at the Closure requests noticeboard. If a consensus is formed against the merge shortly after it was performed, it can easily be reversed.

To close a merge discussion, use the {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}} templates. Then:

• If the discussion is closed with consensus to merge, change the {{Merge to}} tag to {{Being merged to}} in the source page, and change {{Merge from}} to {{Being merged from}} in the destination page. They should remain tagged until the merge is fully performed, so that they are listed on the relevant backlog.
• If the discussion is closed with consensus against merging or no consensus, remove all the {{Merge}} templates from the destination and source pages, linking to the discussion in your edit summary. Optionally, you can also place {{Old merge}} on the corresponding talk pages.

Step 5: Perform the merge

Following the merge of PAM into AfD, the detailed procedure for carrying out merges is now described at Wikipedia:Merging § Procedure.

Articles proposed for merging

Main page: Category:Articles proposed for merging

This list is updated automatically twice per day by Merge bot.

Jump to a random open merge discussion!

   Jump to a random merge discussion!

February 2026

Siemens Viaggio Comfort ⟶ Siemens Vectouro (Discuss)

Simple. Since this article covers the original Railjet trains (which is mentioned in this article). I propose to merge the Siemens Viaggio Comfort article into this article. Tententenny (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I concur Yuezhi Huang (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The RJ1 (or Viaggio Comfort) is based upon old SGP-Bodywork

The ComfortJet (Vecturo) is apart from the cab car ideantical to the RJ1

The RJ2 (Viaggio Next Level) on the other hand: It is a almost a complete new construction method including Low Floor and High Floor parts. That doesn't fit the Viaggio Comfort Family which is High-Floor Only. DerKaiserschmarren (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I put this onto a healthy merger discussuon because for some reason the Railjet 1 (the Viaggio Comfort) is included in this article even tho they are part of a different product range. Although both of those NMU's are highly identical to one another. I do know feel like there is an overlap, It did not help by the fact the article of Viaggio Next Level no longer exist and it instead redirects to this article. Although i open a healthy debate here if the merger would be approved or not. Tententenny (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

In the german article we actually, just seperated all into their individual Articles with only one short that is combined. Multiple people liked it this way, so probably it is a good Idea to take a look at it. It is Called "Railjet (Zuggattung)"

But I won't stop you from merging them. It just could be more work to seperate them again later on in the long run. ;) DerKaiserschmarren (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Tbh the Railjet article in the English Wikipedia is very outdated by now ever since ÖBB announced they ordered Stadler KISS and the questionable order for Siemens Mireo EMU's and also route changes. I suggest the Railjet article should emphasize on the train service and not the rolling stock. The rolling stock that Railjet uses especially the Viaggio ones instead be put into here. Tententenny (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Yep using the "Railjet" Article for the service instead of the rolling stock would be ideal.

It can then have links to the main Articles of each type.

• Railjet 1
• Railjet 2
• Railjet 3 (Class 4706)
• Railjet M (Class 4864)

(ComfortJet could be added)

Actually I did a big part of that rework in the German Wiki, so if needed I could probably help. DerKaiserschmarren (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I do think merging is a good idea as Siemens stopped using the Viaggio names a year back and started referring them all as Vectouro in the advertising materials. As the Vectouro term getting more referred in the future it is natural to merge the two articles into one under the latest brand name.

These two generations of product are strongly connected as low-floor and high-floor is just an modular option for the latest Vectouro products (ČD Comfortjet contains only high-floor sections) thus no strong proof for separate them as two individual products. Yuezhi Huang (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Support Tententenny (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:FUTURE, "As the Vectouro term getting more referred in the future" is not relevant. It is all speculation. —Sladen (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s not speculation, the Viaggio brand name doesn’t appear in marketing materials anymore. Yuezhi Huang (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Viaggio is the Siemens (marketing) named used on carriages Siemens has delivered, which is what Wikipedia is writing about on, based on existing WP:RS reliable sources. —Sladen (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

When the manufacturer cannot figure out what their product is called; the solution is usually WP:COMMONNAME—follow from the WP:RS, because that is probably what the readership are also going to search for and wish to read about. All the obscure (brand) names can then be relegated to some disambiguation/redirect page. i.e.: The solution here is probably sensible length articles about actually delivered orders, verses overly-long and confusing abominations attempting to cover everything. —Sladen (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

List of Johnson solids ⟶ Johnson solid (Discuss)

Propose to merge List of Johnson solids to here. While I am proposing for Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Johnson solids/archive1, I also suggest merging, per the last two talks above from here. By merging, tables may have a small adjustment, by removing the data of their surface area and volume, and replacing them with nets. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, of course, that we have a lot of duplication at this point.

I'm tending towards the following solution:

• Main article: prune the tables, leave only the big image. The previous version had some text below the list talking a bit about the families and their construction, maybe we add something like that back in to accompany the image.
• List: leave it alone, it has a lot of extra data which I do consider valuable, like volume and area, but which would clutter up the main article.
• Nav boxes: Gone from both.

Introscopia (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Support merge per above. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

well, whatever the decision ends up being, I went ahead and removed the navboxes. I think we all agree those were unnecessary. Introscopia (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Introscopia. Then adding some vertex configurations and categorize whether each solid is composite or elementary? Some just asked for adding a 3-connected planar graph, but this is too much. Equally, all articles must have such a description. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, friend, once again I can't really tell what you mean.

And while I'm here: I'm going to revert the edits to that info box with the three shapes, ok? I feel you reduced the clarity and readability, with no obvious upside. Introscopia (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Introscopia. I think applying directly is much more understandable than saying here. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Cognitive warfare ⟶ Psychological warfare (Discuss)

Merger with Psychological warfare

I struggle to see the difference between these, and to the extent there is a difference, it seems this article could be a section of the other article rather than a separate one, as it is now, because they cover very similar concepts, with a lot of overlapping information. Yet, for how similar the two articles are, there is very little cross-linking between them. Blippy1998 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

searching cw in open-and-closed inverted commas on google scholar yields 3000+ results.
Does the superiority of merging into a section to leaving as two separate articles hinge on the absence of defined, distinctive use of the term "CW"?

eg https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/11/14/assessing-cognitive-warfare/ "For du Cluzel, psychological warfare attempts to change what the target audience thinks,

but Cognitive Warfare aims at shaping how they reason and their resultant behavior."

eg https://www.jstor.org/stable/48873423 "Psychological warfare focuses on the perceptions, thoughts, and feelings of human agents

… Cognitive warfare is a concept that has evolved a step beyond psychological warfare, …"

Eg the study, 'A Comparative Study on the Development of the CCP's "Psychological Warfare" and "Cognitive Domain Warfare."', in the wikipedia article.

Even if there's overlapping information, they needn't be merged: CW and PW are not equivalent. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Overlaps can be removed without merger FatalSubjectivities (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Not merge - however, the article could mention - if there are any wiki-notable pundits that have claimed that "Cognitive warfare is not a thing", or "Cognitive warfare is hardly anything else than another name for Psycological warfare", or similar claims. ~2026-33847-40 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge - i have now changed my view.--The buzzword can be merged into "Psychological warfare" (wiki-article).--I am not convinced that all the foreign-language sources are helpful (and someone else can say if they found any of those, helpful). ~2026-41308-76 (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC) ~2026-33847-40 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge It's fundamentally the same concept, and should be merged; this is just another think-tank buzzword variation on the exact same concept. The definitions are not actually different. "shaping how they reason and their resultant behavior" is literally the same thing as the lead sentence definition for psychological operations ("Psychological operations (PSYOPs) are military operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their motives and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and large foreign powers.") It's the exact same thing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 14:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

In that case, anyone should consider changing "Psychological warfare" article immediately, so that it says something like

"A similar concept, Cognitive warfare has been defined as shaping how they reason and their resultant behavior ... influence their motives and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior", blah blah.

Be sure to add wiki-notable reference.

When that largely is done (as outlined in this post), then i will most definitely consider changing my "vote" (from "Not merge" to "Merge"). ~2026-33847-40 (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

That would be done post-merge. There's no need to do it ahead of the merge discussion closing. And, as a reminder this is not a vote, it's a discussion. It sounds like you're in favor of a merge with the post-merge content in place. Great. The closer should take that into account. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad we're finally getting some people in here to discuss. To be clear, when I said "could be a section of the other article", this is indeed exactly what I meant. I don't want to delete this page or the info on it; just deduplicate to the extent that is appropriate and add what is missing, but ultimately consolidate the pages. Obviously I'm in favor of merging but I don't think we should go ahead until we get more discussion on the subject here, ideally from some more folks. To that end, if anyone wants to tag people who've contributed to these articles in the past (if that is appropriate by Wikipedia guidelines), go ahead. Blippy1998 (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

yeah? do i accept? Alty of Steel (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose merge; these are clearly distinct topics; readers are best served by having these discussed separately, and each of the articles is sufficiently well-developed that a merge isn't warranted for 'short text'. Klbrain (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

in my proposal, i wrote that i struggle to see the difference between them; that is, they are not "clearly distinct topics". could you explain please? also, even if they are meaningfully distinct, it's possible that "they cover very similar concepts", as i wrote. (edited to add this underlined section.) Blippy1998 (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

you're talking to me or klbrain? I read often ut it might get too problematic anyways Alty of Steel (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

i was responding to klbrain Blippy1998 (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

ahh okay okay got confused, new to here (wikipedians) Alty of Steel (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Annoying Anonymous8999 np; welcome! Blippy1998 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Blippy1998: Regardless of what we might think here, reliable sources make a distinction between Cognitive warfare and Psychological warfare. Some of them on the basis of time (that is 'psychology' is the older concept; 'cognitive is its modern descendant'), but perhaps more argue for a distinct scope. For example, The three central effects of psychological warfare are: influencing the enemy’s cognitive processes, influencing the enemy’s behavior, and influencing friendly cognitive processes and behaviors. Schmidle, 2026. The two articles are sufficiently well-developed that readers are best served by keeping them separate, rather than having one large page. If the pages were shorter or less-well-developed I would have been more likely to support a merge, as I can certainly see the overlap. Klbrain (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

" 'cognitive [warfare] is its modern descendant'", you wrote 19:14, 24 July.

I am not trying to be rude, but did you use AI to create that post?

Now, it may not be helpful in this case to have two articles about essentially the same thing. I am not at all convinced, by your claim that "The two articles are sufficiently well-developed that readers are best served by keeping them separate, rather than having one large page." ~2026-41308-76 (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Schmidle;2026 - the link to that paper says that "Schmidle ... This paper is the result of a new research project funded by the ... the U.S. Department of War".--Non-independent research about a buzzword - is that a reasonable claim? ~2026-41308-76 (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I think to really convince me that they shouldn't be merged, one would have to make a clear, well-cited distinction between the two in the article and in the lead, showing how "cognitive warfare" is a well-defined term of art used in a manner distinct from "psychological warfare", AND demonstrate that the study of "cognitive warfare" as distinct from psychological warfare is a sufficiently large domain in its own right to warrant the risks of overlap and stale information that come with having separate articles. Blippy1998 (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

It is best to bite the bullet. Anyone should consider starting Article-for-Deletion process; you have my support.

Anyone might want to find out if there have been (civilian) college courses or university courses in the U.S. regarding "psychological warfare". Thereafter compare that info with colleges/universities that have courses in "Cognitive warfare".

(I am guessing that "Cognitive warfare" is a pleasant-sounding euphemism for "Phsychological warfare" - however, I probably will not be looking for more sources about related warfare.)

Another thing, the community has had more than a year to land this article. So far the article seems to have crashed & burned.--Time for the stuff to be nuked. ~2026-41308-76 (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Slovak Republic (1939–1945) ⟷ Slovakia during World War II (Discuss)

Shouldn't this be merged with Slovak Republic (1939–1945), since the both cover the same thing? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that these articles should be merged because they cover the exact same historical entity and time period. Having two separate pages creates unnecessary redundancy and splits valuable information across different locations. The "Slovak Republic (1939–1945)" article is the more appropriate primary title as it identifies the specific political state that existed during the war. Dasomm (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, merge to Slovak Republic (1939–1945). ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd be redundant to have 2 pages that cover the same thing although you'd have to trim it down a bit if the article size is too big. KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't the Slovak Republic predate WW2 by six months, though? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

yes, mainly because the Slovak Republic was made close to WW2, plus a prelude could fix the issue. KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, merge into Slovak Republic (1939–1945). Otapka (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - No, this article covers specifically Slovakia during World War II, the Slovak Republic article is about the state itself and its history. And the republic predates World War II on its own. Not to mention that the article covers the aftermath and the deportation of Jews. Most of the replies in this discussion seem to be low quality, not providing long reasoning except 'yes do it because this'. Although this article could be more expanded upon, i oppose. JJUPLOADS22 (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Support merge: there is so much overlap that this amounts to duplication of scope. Given that 'during World War II' is marginally smaller in scope, I agree that the target should be Slovak Republic (1939–1945). Klbrain (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log/June 2026

Articles with consensus to merge

Main pages: Category:Articles with consensus to merge and Category:Articles with consensus to merge following AfD discussion

If a merge discussion has been closed with consensus to merge, you can optionally list it at Wikipedia talk:Merging or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge to attract editors interested in carrying out the merge. Any editor can perform these merges by following the merging instructions!

Jump to a random article with consensus to merge!

   Merge a random article!

See also

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, the current process for nominating an article for merging
• Wikipedia:Perennial proposals § Rename AfD or expand its scope
  • Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merging merge discussions with AfD, the discussion which shut down the Proposed article mergers process
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Implementing the PAM–AfD merge, the discussion for implementing the consensus
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge, a project initiated to clear the merger backlog
• Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, policy on copying content within Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits