Merge should not require a target

[pppery]

Often times it's clear from the discussion itself what is being merged to where and just "the result of the discussion was merge" should suffice.

[primefac]

And occasionally it is not clear from the discussion, so I would say that having a merge target is a good thing (even if it's obvious).

[bunnypranav]

I assume Pppery is asking for the target field to not be compulsory, not for it to be completely removed.

In my experience in CfD (I know this issue is including all XfD), even when the target is obvious we have to paste in the target if we are using XfD Closer. I think not making it mandatory, atleast for some XfD venues, is a good idea.

[primefac]

You and I both assumed the same thing. I guess I am wondering why it is problematic to "state the obvious" so to speak; I would much rather have a close be as clear as possible than have anything misconstrued because the closer thought that the merge was obvious and thus skipped that step.

[bunnypranav]

Fair enough. My thought was that where it is not specified, the nomination statement contains the answer. If the nomination statement doesn't contain it, the closer has the responsibility to include it in their closing statement.