Wikipedia:Duplicate articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WP:DA

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 should be listed (together) on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, if one category will be empty after merging into the other. (Please do not use merge tags for categories.)

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
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 - Misc. pages - 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 - Interwiki link checker
Images Requested pictures - Pictures needing attention - Images for cleanup - Image recreation requests - Caption review - Images with missing articles
Controversy Neutrality - Article accuracy - Statement accuracy - Copyright violations
To-do lists Articles - Projects - Books
More Cleaning department - 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.

[edit]

See also



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

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Note

It has been suggested that editors use merge tags exclusively without also listing mergers here.
You can discuss this proposal on the talk page, or follow the suggestion if you agree.

[edit]

0-9

[edit]

A

[edit]

B

  • 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)
      • This is not like Inspector Clouseau films at all. A strong majority of footage in BOTP is identical in sequence and content to Gatchaman. As for minimizing violence, these were voiceovers suggesting that battles were happening in outer space, and that enemy goons were merely knocked out instead of killed. The plot is the same, the characters are the same... it is a heavily edited adaptation, but they are not completely different shows. The Hokkaido Crow 07:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Anti-merge. BoTP has developed a life of its own in western culture and deserves an (expanded) article of its own. -maclean25 05:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Definitively should merge. There are lines that are word for word the same. All the same subjects are covered in both articles. Anyways since after 2 months there is still no consensus, if there ever is you can look at the history of both pages to my last edit if the vote is to merge. Elfguy 20:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Boast of Cassiopeia shares the mythology, constellations, trivia, and even interwiki links with Andromeda (mythology). --Puzzlet Chung 02:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Brainwashing and Mind control are often used interchangeably - also the articles have material in common. --Irmgard 18:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Busy waiting and Spinlock. I don't see the difference. --Abdull 17:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

C

  • Cost accounting possibly could be merged with management accounting. Although my professor does not make a difference between these two, I am not so sure so I ask for your opinion. Renata3 16:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

D

[edit]

E

[edit]

F

  • Foreign relations between Japan and China & Sino-Japanese relations: I've unmerged these two because the previous merge was a simple copy-&-paste job, with no consideration of the content (How can the "Concluding Remarks" be in the middle and above the Table of Contents ?). Need someone familiar with the topic to incorporate the materials into one article that flows properly. -- PFHLai 14:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

G

  • Gun ban should be merged into gun politics. Aecis 19:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Gurkha and Brigade of Gurkhas end up basically discussing the same topic, since Gurkhas are best known for being in armies which organise them in Brigades of Gurkhas anyway.--Huaiwei 21:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Gurkha and Brigade of Gurkhas are two distinct and different topics. The former is about a social group of the Indian subcontinent, mostly residing in Nepal, whereas the later is about the soldiers, mostly belonging to this social group. Merging the two is like merging an article on Sikhs with the Sikh Regiment or vice versa. Accordingly, I shall be removing the merger notice shortly. Further comments are invited. I have palced the similar opinion on these articles talk pages. --Bhadani 14:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

H

  • HavenCo is an almost identical reiteration of content already included in Sealand, (and which belongs there IMO) with a few additional links. I propose that the links should be merged with the Havenco section of Sealand, and HavenCo then deleted.
[edit]

I

However, according to this vote, it appears as though "I'll Be There (Mariah Carey song)" was voted to be kept separate. --Hollow Wilerding 14:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
That particular vote attracted ten "keep" votes and eight "merge" votes, which would be considered "no consensus" today. Extraordinary Machine 14:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
So yesterday it could have meant "consenus"? No. It received more "keep" than "merge" votes, and I also vote "keep" (despite the fact that it is technically too late for that), which means that they will be kept separate. That's the end of this discussion. --Hollow Wilerding 15:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
If one reads the AfD, very few reasonable justifications are given for keeping the seperate article. This isn't the complete lapse of reasoning that resulted in seperate articles on "The Star Spangled Banner" and "Santa Claus is Comin' to Town", but it's a lapse nonetheless. The established precedent was one article per song (and I know this because I asked here [1]). Seperate articles are very much unneccssary bloat. --FuriousFreddy 16:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
From the knowledge I have gained about you FuriousFreddy, it appears that you persist in having a "good reason" for voting "keep" during a deletion process. Since a good reason is different to everybody, as some people say they want certain things "because they like it" or "because I think it's preferable" is a good enough reason. Merged articles are completely unnecessary, because it interferes with categories and shatters the attention from one artist(s) onto two. There is also the case when a cover version is much more notable than its original ("These Boots Are Made for Walking" — Jessica Simpson), and I disagree strongly. --Hollow Wilerding 17:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
There is no need for an article about each cover of each song. There is, in fact, no need for an entire article about the promotional effort behind / chart performance of Mariah Carey's cover of the song, which is what the duplicate article appears to be. I'd also suggest that the word "notability" needs to be examined if it can be used to suggest that a cover version by Jessica Simpson deserves more attention in an encyclopedia than Nancy Sinatra's original recording. Jkelly 23:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Really, the fact that three different people are arguing against one is peculiar — I'm sure you don't require back-up to get your point across. But nonetheless, I disagree once again. "Notability" only requires examining if one does not know its meaning: "to be notable". There we go. Both versions are notable, therefore both versions require (or deserve) separate articles. I would not like it if one of my favourite songs was covered by another artist(s) and had to be merged because two versions of it existed. --Hollow Wilerding 02:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ideally, contributions from a variety of users should be seen as participation and consensus-building, and not "calling for backup". If you're interested in some of the larger issues, you may want to look at Wikipedia talk:Notability proposal, and, as far as my position goes, m:mergism. Jkelly 02:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately my mind will not be changed. Having merged articles because there is a notable cover version does not strike me as an interesing cause. However, since you will use whatever it takes for you to ensure the articles merge, I am going to begin work on the notable eleven cover versions of "The Loco-Motion". --Hollow Wilerding 23:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
As I said on Talk:I'll Be There: per Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages, merging articles is a good idea when "There are two or more articles on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there doesn't need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe". Information on the Jackson 5 and Mariah Carey versions of the song fits easily under the 32kb article size limit, the different sections on the two versions are clearly indicated, and I feel it's better to have the history of a song in one place anyway. I don't see what the problem is. Extraordinary Machine 17:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[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.
[edit]

K

[edit]

L

  • I don't think the article Lena Soderberg is important without mentioning her role in Lenna, so proposing the merge. --Puzzlet Chung 15:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • London Trams and Trams in London could be merged (note comments in talk pages) as much overlap/duplication. If appropriate could divide into periods covering (Trams to closure) and (Trams the new generation - ie Croydon tramlink and other modern developments) appropriatedly cross linked. Jackiespeel 18:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

M

  • Mass airflow sensor and Mass air meter should be merged. Also I think the former is most commonly referred to with 'Air' and 'Flow' as separate words. Also, should be disambiguated from MAF
  • Myoclonus should probably subsume Myoclonic jerk and Myoclonic seizure, as they're all referring to the same thing and myoclonus is technically correct and has the most information of the three. Nmg20 12:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Missed approach should be merged with go around, which is the more general term (the former is more common in North America, with the latter being used worldwide) and probably has most information already.
[edit]

N

  • Neopets and Powerpets need to be merged, preferably by a senior Wikipedian who knows what she/he is doing. Use your own discretion as to which article is better written and therefore more apt for it's information to be kept. Thank you and God bless you! -- Antonio I rarely use UTC time Martin 00:46 21 Jul, 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

O

[edit]

P

  • Pony Express and Pony Express National Historic Trail. Conceivably, they could refer to at least slighly different things, but don't, particularly, at the moment, and it seems to me as though the trail is, on some level, a subset of the larger institution.Adbarnhart 19:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Postposition and adposition I think this article should be merged with adposition along with preposition. Currently, adposition is merely a stub, and even if we include the quite large corpus of text in preposition, it still wouldn't be too big to handle. Especially if we try limit the amount of examples. Adposition is the combined term and since placement is the only thing differing the various "-position", it doesn't seem all that useful to keep separate articles on them. At least not until it's grown too large to be housed in one article.
[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

  • Shell_(computing) and Operating system shell are primarily redundant information. While there is context for using the computing term shell to mean something other then an interface to the OS this is nonstandard and is at most a footnote. Falerin 15:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Although I agree that the term shell is primarily used for OS GUI / text interfaces I do not believe this term to be non-standard and simply a footnote. With the proliferation of shells on Unix/Linux especially and a few years now of replacement shells for Windows (e.g. LiteStep) I think this is justified in having its own article. cjoprey 08:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't argue that the term is non-standard. Rather that using it to refer to something in computing other than an interface to the OS/Kernel, such as web browser being a shell arround html pages or an email client being a shell to email, is rather limited in scope and rarely used. As the current Shell_(computing) article stands, what would be left if the material that refers to differing OS/Kernel interfaces were removed, and indeed the many alternative shells and desktop environments all fit this description, Shell_(computing) would not provide a very informative independent stub or even dictionary definition. However there is a cogent argument, offered by the original author, that the Operating System Shell is a more specific example of the computer science definition in general terms. This may in fact speak for a merge in a direction opposite to my current suggestion. See Talk:Operating_system_shell. (I provide the general link rather then the section beacuse the talk page is short and the section on Shell Versus Desktop Environment have some bearing.) Falerin 07:03, 16 August 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)
  • TeamBath into University of Bath. Most of the info on the TeamBath page is taken exactly from the University of Bath page, but there are a few differences. Quadraxis 18:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

U

[edit]

V

[edit]

W

  • 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

[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
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Duplicate_articles"
Personal tools