Template talk:Merge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Merge
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Merge, an attempt to reduce the articles to be merged backlog and improve the merging process. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This talk page is for the discussion of the following templates:

Please be clear in your comments which template you are referring to.

Only some of these templates have been protected. But since these templates should work similarly, please discuss any changes on this talk page first. Any user can edit the documentation, add interwikis and categories, since as usual the /doc sub-pages are not protected.

Better defaulting for merge discussion links.[edit]

We have an ongoing problem where the default use of these templates gives a link to a merge discussion that addresses a Talk: page, but not a section within that Talk: page. (Thankfully they do now at least point to the same page.)

I suggest that {{Merge to}} should use the following to default its discuss parameter:

[[{{{discuss|Talk: {{{1}}}#Merge of {{PAGENAME}}}}]]

Similarly for {{Merge from}}, but transposed appropriately. If multiple merge targets are used, dropping the defaulting and relying on the editor setting it manually would be reasonable. Such cases are rare. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me add further, back about six years ago the help for these was written specifically and with great care to aim people (step by step forsooth!) to INITIATE a talk section, then link that in both article instances, whichever template was used. Seems to me a spot check a year or two ago had that language pretty much as I carefully wrote it.


Now the help indicates 'discuss=' is optional, not just the start, and apparently the linking template chains (kludge) is breaking the talk page section link (see the other section above--this has apparently been the case for over a year!).
  • PROPOSE STRONGLY, go back to the simpler template construction without all the nesting and make it MANDANDTORY under pain of RED ERROR MESSAGE that not linking the discuss talk section makes the perpetrator look like an ass... for this action is a pre-requisite... if he/she feels strongly enough about the merge appropriateness, then please clue us in with your reasoning, and take the time to let us know what that is. If YOU CAN'T be bothered, DON'T bother us requiring US TO WASTE TIME figuring out where such a discussion might be, and (THEN!) whether it has merit! [These in your face tags are our of control... we need a committee of admins to Vet them or something!]

So 1) Fix the template section linking, 2) fix the help making such mandatory, 3) install error messaging in the template (After an interval when a hidden category lists those with invalid section links... cleaned up, then add the errors) Best regards! // FrankB 16:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Can we get some movement on this please? It's tedious for humans to have to set these discussion links up manually, robots should be doing that for us. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge section[edit]

{{Merge sections}} may be modified to avoid duplicating {{Merge}}, provided it's backwards compatible -- the section=y part cannot be lost; also it used to support small=y, which seems broken. Fgnievinski (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I'll report the comment as instructed; the small=y part is a secondary issue. Fgnievinski (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing merge requests when one page is templated and no discussion occurs[edit]

Would anyone have any objection to having a bot remove merge templates on pages where there is a merge template placed on a page and no one opens up a discussion on why they placed the tag? I know that we are allowed to remove templates if there is no discussion, but there is currently no thing on this page that allows for people to remove the templates if both pages are tagged and there is no discussion, but I don't want to amend it on this page unless there is consensus to do so. I also have left a note on the bot request page to have someone do that, just so people are aware. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be within the rules, but who is to decide what is enough time to remove the template. At the moment, Category:Articles to be merged shows that there are merge templates from November 2011. Debresser (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I would say at least a month, with a maximum of three months. If an editor places a tag with no intention of explaining why they want to merge the articles, then there is no way that we would know why they want to merge the articles or why it was even placed to begin with. Thus, it could remain for years without anyone even checking it, which leads to unnecessary clutter on the page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This same question, how long should a template be on a page, can be asked for other templates as well. I think we should ask broader input on this question. Sometimes, especially on articles that are no visited often, it can take considerable time before somebody posts an opinion, or takes action. A rule that would limit the time a merge template can be on a page will make it de facto unlikely that such articles will be merged. I personally would be in favor of a span of a year even. Debresser (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
When compared to POV templates, where there also is a rule that they can be removed if discussion is dormant (without a strict timeframe, notably), there usually is fervent discussion. Such is the nature of POV templates. But merge templates are not like that. When I see a template I think "Maybe. Not a bad idea", but I don't necessarily start taking part in the discussion. That is another reason why I think the timeframe should be generous. Debresser (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I am thinking that we could give at least six months for something like this, as I know Merge bot is the one that helps to clean out some of this. My main issue is that I have run into templates that were added many years ago, and so they have had a lot of time to be discussed, but without a rationale for doing the merger, or another tag on the article, it is hard to gauge if they seriously want to have the page merged, or just are performing a drive-by request of sorts, without actually going into details. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge templates don't work across namespace[edit]

I just proposed merging Wikipedian of the Year and Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year using these templates, but the links in the template don't seem to work right - from the main namespace, the link shows up in the text of the template OK, but the link just links back to the mainspace article. From the other, I can't seem to point it towards mainspace - it assumes that the destination article is in Wikipedia: namespace. Fortunately, the discussion links seem to work OK. Any chance this behaviour could be fixed so that cross-namespace mergers are supported, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you should use 2=Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Trying {{merge from|2=Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year|date=June 2016}} at Wikipedian of the Year doesn't seem to change the behaviour - it still links to the mainspace article, not the one in Wikipedia: namespace. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk)
Sorry: 1=Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year. By the way, next time it would really help if you would inform us at what article the problem occurs. Debresser (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Nope, still doesn't work. {{merge|1=Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year}} at Wikipedian of the Year shows "Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year" in the text, but the link still goes to Wikipedian of the year. I think I've linked to the relevant article sthree times now - the merge has already taken place, so the banner isn't used there now, but you can still try adding the code quoted earlier in this comment to see the bug in action. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk)
This seems to be working as expected now, thanks @Andy M. Wang! Mike Peel (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 July 2016[edit]

Please change "suggested" to "proposed" Music1201 talk 03:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this wording change, but let's wait a bit for any possible objections. Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 04:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Either way is fine by me. Just keep in mind that a number of similar templates, such as {{merge to}} and {{split}}, use "suggested". This edit request has implications for those templates as well. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The list appears to be {{Split}}, {{Split and dab}}, {{Split dab}}, {{Split section}}, {{Split portions}}, {{Merge to}}, {{Merge}}, {{Merge from}}, and {{Merge portions from}}. I personally see this change being unnecessary and unnecessarily using server resources just to make a somewhat inconsequential wording update on highly visible templates. Very much inclined to toggle this, because it's encouraged to gain consensus via discussion before opening up a TPROT edit request, not keep this open to gain visibility and discussion through it. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 04:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Seem to be 13000 transclusions for all the templates on Andy's list. If this is to be done, and I don't think one editor's aesthetic whim is a good reason, it should be done alongside some of the more serious and necessary (and ignored) points further up the talk page. for (;;) (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the change, but only alongside some more serious changes. I distinctly remember that Merge used to work cross-template in the past. Debresser (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@For (;;) and Debresser: The current sandbox is now namespace-sensitive for |target=, not for |1=, |2=, .. |20=. The current implementation using {{Pagelist}} assumes that all 20 pages are in the same namespace as the original, and if we're deviating from that, allowing any namespaces, that would be a bigger change. Is there consensus for that? — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 22:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi User:Mr. Stradivarius, this merge template uses Module:Pagelist to get a list of page links. A current issue is that there is no way to override namespace individually for the 20 unnamed params; in fact, currently it defaults only to the namespace of the current page. (e.g. a link may display as "Wikipedia:Merging" when the link is to the mainspace "Merging".) A temporary workaround is to pass a new |nspace= from this template to {{Pagelist}} to make the 20 links change namespace together (which may be valid, since it's unlikely a request will come along asking to merge a page with a Wikipedia-namespace page and a Portal page, for example). Do you see a simpler solution? Or do you think module pagelist could be changed to be namespace-sensitive? — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 06:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As per Andy's original comment, there should be a proper discussion about changing the wording (or not) before a request is made. The above conversation got rather quickly off-topic, so I invite further comment, and if a consensus is reached the tper can be re-opened. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Primefac: Well on a side note, the issue discussed not in this section but above has a solution (cross-namsepace merges), which would introduce |nspace=all as a special case. The change is queued up at Module:Pagelist/sandbox and Template:Merge/sandbox. Although I'm on semiwikibreak, I'll sync this if there are no complaints. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 17:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Debresser: I synced, and now {{Merge}} supports cross-namespace merges by default. This requires specifying a namespace prefix, so I updated the doc accordingly. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 18:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)