I propose to merge Engrish into Broken English. I think that the content in the Engrish article can easily be explained in the context of Broken English, and the Broken English article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Engrish will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 14:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection to the proposed merge. We would merely be dividing Broken English into subsections indicating intentional and unintentional occurrences. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you, that seems like the best solution. PrussianOwl (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• disagree — Where would it stop? You've also got Chinglish and Siglish to deal with, for starters, and then might as well look into somehow merging with Non-native pronunciations of English and many of the articles mentioned therein; my feeling is that if the large project isn't going to be undertaken, then there's little basis for the easy merge. More significantly, the merge proposal needs to be tabled until Broken English is turned into a credible article, with EVERYTHING properly sourced — there are at least four (arguably six) unsourced claims in the first sentence alone, so I've tagged the page as needs improvement. (And having now reread Engrish, I see how the ostensible topic morphs from "comedic form of broken English" to "random misspellings and grammatical errors of English that have appeared in Japan, oh and among other Asian cultures too" without any clear supporting connection, which not only directly contradicts "This article is about purposely broken English. For English that is mistakenly broken, see Engrish" but looks like synthesis so MUST be fixed before any merge.)
  Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]