WikiPedia:Duplicate articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Below is a list of duplicate articles that have been created mostly by mistake. They have to be merged into a single piece of work, and one title has to be redirected to the other (or a completely new page must be created) in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Canonicalization.

Categories that need merging can be listed [together] on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion where one category will be deleted after merging into the other.

Although this page does not automatically update as does Category:Articles to be merged, this page has nevertheless been kept because unlike the category page, this page allows editors to make comments about the articles to be merged.

If you disagree with a "merge" indication then you can remove it, or change the template from {{merge|Article Name}} to {{MergeDisputed|Article Name}} and discuss it on this page until consensus is reached.

Resources for maintenance and collaboration edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Resources_for_collaboration&action=edit)
Cleanup General - Subject-specific - Move to Wiktionary - Wiki syntax - English grammar - Cleanup Taskforce
Categories Orphaned - General cleanup - Articles to be sorted - Underpopulated - More...
Create an article Most wanted - Requests 2 years+ - Requests 1 year+ - Requested articles - Blank pages - Missing encyclopedic topics
Stubs Advice - Stubs by topic - Most wanted - Short pages - Incomplete lists - Collaboration of the week
Disambig Articles to merge - Articles to split
Deletion Speedy - Articles - Categories - Redirects - Templates - Jokes - Log - Discussion archives - Undeletion
Polishing Expand an article - Peer review - Featured candidates - Fill a topic list - This week's improvement drive
Translation into English From foreign Wikipedias - Existing pages - Spanish Translation of the Week
Images Requested pictures - Pictures needing attention - Image recreation requests - Caption review - Images with missing articles
Controversy Neutrality - Article accuracy - Statement accuracy - Copyright violations
To-do lists Articles - Projects - Books
More Active Wiki Fixup Projects - Offline reports - Open tasks
[edit]

Actively avoiding duplicates

You can help prevent the creation of duplicate articles (and the resulting wasted effort) by:

  • Searching for existing articles on the same subject before creating any new articles.
  • Creating redirects for every term that is synonymous with the article's name, provided that it doesn't have to be disambiguated.
  • Using the correct existing capitalization of an article name when linking to it.
  • Instead of contributing to an article - check first that an article on essentially the same subject does not already exist. If it does, put merge notices on the two articles and then contribute to the correct one.

Wikipedia:Orphaned Articles lists articles that aren't linked to, and may have been created when a new article was created without having searched for a previously existing article.

[edit]

Mark current duplicates

If you find a pair of articles that appear to be duplicates, merge them! If you can't carry out the merger yourself, it is suggested that you put the following at the top of each:

{{merge|Other article}}

This informs future visitors to the pages of your request that they be merged.


If you know which way the merger should go, you can put the following at the top of the article where the merged material should end up:

{{mergefrom|Other article}}

...and the following at the top of the article that contains material to be merged with the other article:

{{mergeto|Other article}}


Please note that the list at the bottom of this page is not generated automatically; its entries must be added manually (unlike Category:Articles to be merged).

Many Wikipedia users prefer to avoid having tags at the tops of articles, particularly if they aren't relevant to readers. Consider using these tags sparingly, and use the talk pages to discuss how to merge articles where it's not obvious whether or how the articles should be merged.

[edit]

How articles should be merged

Before you begin with the process of merging the articles, it is recommended that you take these bits of advice into consideration:

  • Usually, an experienced user will suggest that one article (the source) be absorbed into another (the target).
  • Read both articles carefully and decide which article has the more appropriate title and content.
  • Merge the content by copying/pasting from one window to another. Be sure not to allow any of the good content to be lost in the transfer.
  • The articles don't necessarily have to be merged at once. You can let others collaborate with the merging process, by placing the {{merging|Target article name}} template on the page that you will merge from (the source page). In this way, confusion will also be avoided, as others will know that the source page is outdated, and that all further contributions should only be included in the target page.
  • Upon completion, it is critical to place a redirect on the page that the content has been moved from. For example, if you move the content of "John Ronald Doe" into "John Doe" you replace the content of the former with "#REDIRECT [[John Doe]]". This helps people find the new article title and prevents others from mistakenly recreating the duplicate.
  • If you copy material from one article to the other, you must explain in your edit comment that you have done so, giving the name of the source article, for example "Merged material from [[John Ronald Doe]] into section "Biography"." This is important so that all contributors to the article can be properly credited, as required by the GFDL.

Alternatively, you could also leave the two pages distinct (without a redirect), but complete the text of one of the pages so that it is no longer a duplicate, incorrect, or a stub. For example, someone might suggest that the "Cinema of India" and "History of Indian Cinema" be merged, as they contain mostly duplicate information. In this case "Cinema of India" should contain an overview of the subject, including a short summary of the history, with a link to "History of Indian Cinema" which should contain the detailed history.

After a pair has been merged, please remove it from the list below (both the source and target pages). If you want to show off your work, use the Talk Page.

Contents: top - 0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
[edit]

Articles to be merged

See also

[edit]

0-9

[edit]

A

  • Americo-Liberian & True Whig: They seem to be the same group of people in Liberia, right ? -- PFHLai 17:44, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
    • The former are an ethnic population while the latter are/were a political organization controlled by and representing that population.The articles would appear capable of development in divergent directions.--Louis E./le@put.com12.144.5.2 04:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Autism epidemic should be merged into the "Increase in diagnoses of autism" section of Autism. Feco 20:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Disagree - both articles are long enough - we wouldn't want to expand Autism. Instead, I would suggest spilting Autism into sub-articles.
[edit]

B

  • Baltasar Gracián into Baltasar Gracián y Morales. KSchutte 03:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Battle of the Planets to Kagaku ninja tai Gatchaman - If Battle of the Planets had been a faithful adaptation of Gatchaman this merge would make clear sense. However, Battle is so heavily edited from Gatchaman that it's perhaps fairer to describe it as "made with footage from Gatchaman" than as an English version that doesn't warrant a separate article. The two articles need cleanup to separate what is BotP-specific from what is Gatchaman-specific, but IMHO they do not need a merge. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • There is also the question of where to put material relating the G-Force and Eagle Riders - two other translations of Gatchaman. My inclination would be to use Battle of the Planets for all English-language versions, and Kagaku ninja tai Gatchaman for all Japanese language versions, with cross-linking as appropriate. Bluap 10:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Eagle Riders was actually a translation of the two sequel series. G-Force was an accurate enough translation of the show that my inclination is to put it, along with Eagle Riders, at the Gatchaman article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I think Feldspar has hit it on the head. BOTP needs to be separated, unless the BOTP article cannot be brought up to standard, then perhaps delete it (but That's another issue).Osprey
    • I'd rather see them all merged into one, of course with sections for each version. If we merge all material, this would make one good article instead of several stubish ones we have now. Consider for example Master of Orion or Railroad Tycoon games, or Crest of the Stars anime - all of them discuss several series in one article, thus giving the reader a fairly long and interesting article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Pro-merge. I disagree that BOtP is different enough from Gatchaman to warrant a different entry. There should be a single Gatchaman article with sections describing each iteration. Basically, BOtP cut out some violence and added voice-overs to suggest that the action was taking place in outer space. While these edits are not trivial, they did not fundamentally change the plot or characters. Having a separate entry for BOtP would be like having separate entries for cover versions of the same song.The Hokkaido Crow 11:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Anti-merge. They are totally different series with different plots. It's like suggesting some of the later Inspector Clouseau films be merged with the earlier ones because they were made from deleted scenes and offcuts of them. David | Talk 14:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Bill Pryor should be merged into William H. Pryor, Jr.. The Bill Prior article is the more complete biography but the William H. Pryor, Jr. article title is consistent with the other judicial biographies. I have edited Bill Pryor to contain all information from both articles. NoSeptember 18:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

C

  • Color theory and color circle should be merged, possibly into Color theory, which is more extensive. Interestingly, color wheel redirects to color theory. Andrew pmk 02:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose!. The color wheel is part of color theory (which is why it redirects there), whereas the color circle is not. A glance at the differences between the color wheels showl on the color theory page and the color circle on the color circle page should indicate the differences between the two. The color circle is a tool in psychophysics, and relates to psychological laws of vision. It has nothing whatsoever to do with color theory, which is an aesthetic theory. To merge the two articles would be like merging an article on acoustics with one on music, or merging articles on astronomy with those on astrology. Color is used in art, and described in science. The color wheel and color theory relate to art, the color circle and color vision relate to science. Grutness...wha? 07:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

D

  • Dixon Hill has been turned back into the version I originally wrote when I created it, making it a duplicate of the "Dixon Hill" section in Jean-Luc Picard. — JIP | Talk 13:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

E

[edit]

F

  • Folk etymology is the appropriate term for what has been filed under Fake etymology--ZayZayEM 11:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No! See the last entry on the discussion page of Folk etymology. They are clearly separate (if certainly confusing) terms. I have removed the merge request. Mwanner 21:33, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

G

  • Just come across Geodetic datum and Geodetic system. Both are stubs and I don't think much can be added to them that isn't already covered in Geodesy (which looks quite thorough). So I'm proposing that they both get merged to Geodesy. Not sure I have enough knowledge of the field (or time to learn) to do it myself though! Thanks - munt fish 12:58, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
[edit]

H

  • History of LEGO is still there as a separate article, but it does indeed need merging with LEGO. It still has the merge notice, so it's no good just removing it from the 'Duplicate articles' list, Areia. You will have to do something about it, I'm afraid. Dieter Simon 21:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • History_of_Tonga should be merged into Tonga
    • These should not be merged. It is appropriate to have an article on a country with a history summary and have a link to a more in depth history article Alan Liefting 20:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I think what Brim has problems with is that the main article is actually more in depth than the independent article. The Tonga entry on history needs to be made more into a summary. --Woohookitty 09:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Hachi-Ko should be merged into Hachiko. The former has more text, but Google seems to think the latter spelling is more popular, and it has a more encyclopedic tone. —Brent Dax 20:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC) (And ought to check Hachi-Ko for possible copyvio. Elf | Talk 21:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC))
[edit]

I

[edit]

J

  • Jury trial and jury: a lot of material in jury is about the trial process, and should be moved accordingly. US-specific and non-US specific aspects should be sorted out. Jury should keep jury selection, indemnification etc.
  • Juan "Chi-Chi" Rodriguez has a problem with special characters in the filename. Please see Category_talk:Golfers for an explanation and Category:Golfers for a demonstration of the problem. Merging to the one that displays properly—the one with the 1-byte %-code—is preferred, unless internationalization has been prioritized, and then someone should open a bug to get the category-page generator to display the wide-char %-codes properly. Blair P. Houghton 21:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • User:Pcpcpc has deleted the link from Category:Golfers, which is okay for that category page, but doesn't change the fact that there are two pages with the same name and different URLs, neither of which is a redirect. Blair P. Houghton 19:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

K

[edit]

L

[edit]

M

  • The Mother and Talk:Mirra Richard/Original POV version -- Paddu 08:06, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • This has been sitting around for 11 months now. I can imagine that others feel like me: The "Original POV version" is so long that it's hard to judge how POV it is. The Talk:Mirra Richard page isn't very enlightening either, with an anonymous contributor claiming authorship. I would vote for removing this until the Talk:Mirra Richard unequivocally clarifies the POV status of the article. Sebastian 21:16, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
[edit]

N

  • New Keynesian economics and Neo-Keynesian Economics —Gabbe 11:42, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you sure you want to merge the two schools? -- Toytoy 15:06, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe not, at first glance the articles seemed to have significant overlap —Gabbe 15:34, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • The two schools are respresenting different economic theories, and therefor the two articles should not be merged. --Yref 09:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

O

  • Opossum and Virginia opossum—the same animals with a lot of text in each article
    • Hmm. The "Opossum" article seems to be entirely about the Virginia Opossum, and have nothing at all about the Opossum (which is a different species, and native to Australia and New Zealand). Perhaps it is a case of moving the info from Opossum to Virginia Opossum, then writing a new article at Opossum (complete with a "see also" message pointing to the other article). Note that there are also Water Opossums, Murine Opossums, and several other related species. Grutness|hello? 07:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually the Australian species (introduced and invasive/pest in New Zealand) are called "Possums" (not Oppossum). But, of course, the name Oppossum is applied to all Didelphids, and not just the Virginia Oppossum. Guettarda 18:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

P

  • The content from Pupusas should probably just replace the very meager content at Pupusa (properly named according to the Wikipedia MOS, but who every eats just one pupusa). This is almost more of a page move. BlankVerse ∅ 09:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Q

[edit]

R

  • Rug making should be merged with Carpet, then there is Category:Rugs that is in the wilderness... it could be renamed Carpet making. If there is good cause to maintain Rugs separately from Carpets, then make that clear and institute it as a disambiguation page or prominent cross linking. Rug making & Carpets and particularly how they refer to each other is a bit sloppy, confusing and redundant. Also, rug redirects to "rug making" while rugs redirects to "carpet". --RoyBoy 03:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit]

S

  • Succubus (video games) into Succubus—neither is significant enough to stand alone. Or at least, see the discussions on what information should be in 'Succubus' and recognise that no consensus has been reached in the first place at Talk:Succubus -Erolos 17:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Supercoil and Superhelix have significant overlap, but my knowledge of the subject is not enough to judge how the merging would be done better. -- Rune Welsh 15:53, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

T

  • I think toxicity, toxin should be merged. Perhaps also poison, so that the subtle difference between a "toxin" and a "poison" can be explained on the merged page, rather than duplicated on both pages. (toxic already redirects to toxin). --DavidCary 19:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • It seems to me that the merge needed is more between poison and toxin as the distinction is subtle and toxins being a subset of poisons. Toxicity is a discussion of how potent poisons and toxins are and could be a section on that page but seems also fine as its own page.
  • Tuberculin should be merged into Mantoux test. The articles have duplication of content, with the majority of the tuberculin article already being in the Mantoux test. On e possibility is to merge tuberculin into mantoux test, since the mantoux test incorporates tuberculin, and then discuss what tuberculin is. Another possibility is to keep the articles separate, delete the redundant content, and let the tuberculin article discuss what tuberculin is, its history, etc., and then put all the information about the test itself under Mantoux test. —Brim 07:58, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Tokyo Rose needs all its info about Iva Toguri D'Aquino moved into her own page, and should become an article about the term itself and the various women who served as propaganda broadcasters for the Japanese who were collectively so nicknamed. —Morven 19:32, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Third gender should be merged with gender. It's a minority term with little usage and covers a very specific and limited subject matter that should not have is own article. It's a rare phenomenon that exists only in a few small sub-sub-cultures, so it would be rather silly to have an entire article to itself rather than moving what little information there is to gender. Nathan J. Yoder 17:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Highly disputed, see Talk:Third gender. Participants in arbitration, RfC done, comments from others highly welcome. -- AlexR 22:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

U

[edit]

V

  • Vareniki and Varenyky, both undoubtedly dumplings but I wouldn't want to start a food fight over the Russian / Ukrainian versions. Anyone else want to do it? MeltBanana 20:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

W

  • Witch trial into witch-hunt. -Sean Curtin 05:31, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • hmm... Witch-hunt is used as a verb and still goes on. there needs to be some type of differentiation. maybe witch-hunt separate from the other 2 Williamb 06:39, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • "Witch hunt" is the more common term. For example, Burning Times refers exclusively to "witch hunts", not once to "witch trials". Google hits for "witch trial": 11K; for "witch hunt", 271K; for "witchcraft trial", 2K; for "Burning Times", 26K. Uses of the term "witch-hunt" in reference to modern-day activities should be discussed in the article, not moved to a separate article. -Sean Curtin 00:07, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Leave them alone'. Someone already has merged Burning Times into witch-hunt. Witch trial is such a big page that merging it into witch-hunt would make witch-hunt too long. I have put into each page a pointer to the other. Anthony Appleyard 14:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Although I could see making witch-hunt into an article about the social phenomenon and witch trial into an article about the trial itself, doing so would be a pretty arbitrary split. Both articles are still pretty redundant with one another. -Sean Curtin 04:02, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Frankly, both articles need to be reworked so that they have clear-cut and delineated subjects. A couple of sections from Witch trial needs to be moved into witch-hunt and vice versa. Our goal should be to ensure that editors add their contributions to the appropriate articles. -Acjelen 14:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Browser notes into meta:Browser issues with MediaWiki. --Zigger 12:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
    • there could be a case to leaving them separated[:] firstoff, the two projects use difrent[sic] character encoding[;] secondly the wiki one seems to be along the lins of, if you have x browere[sic], then you might have x problems, where[]as the meta one seems like, there are the known issues with meta. although i think that may just be a diffrence[sic] in style.
    • They should be merged. Any "problems" that may be had using Wikipedia with a browser are bugs, and should be fixed. Some of the content on this page should also be merged into Wikipedia:Tools. JesseW 05:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

X

[edit]

Y

  • Yoshiki Hayashi should be merged into Yoshiki
    • Why the former into the latter and not the other way round? That would make more sense. Phils 21:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • changed the notice. CrossTimer 08:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Z


Contents: top - 0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
de:Wikipedia:Artikel zum gleichen Thema

eo:Vikipedio:Duoblaj artikoloj fr:Wikipédia:Pages ŕ fusionner it:Wikipedia:Segnala delle pagine da unire ja:Wikipedia:統合依頼 nl:Wikipedia:Duplicaten pl:Wikipedia:Artykuły wymagające połączenia sv:Wikipedia:Dubblettartiklar zh:Wikipedia:重复条目

Retrieved from "http://wikipedia.cas.ilstu.edu/index.php/WikiPedia:Duplicate_articles"
Personal tools