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.

Bug: linking to section of destination article using {{merge to}} links to the top of the article[edit]

I added a {{merge to}} to the article Egr vs scr as part of my proposal that it be merged into the Emissions section of the article diesel engine. I specified the destination and discussion as follows: {{Merge to|Diesel engine#Emissions|discuss=Talk:Diesel engine#Merger proposal: article Egr vs scr into section Emissions|date=January 2013}} . However, on the resulting tag, the destination link appears as Diesel engine#Emissions but links to diesel engine, when it should link to the correct section of the article (like the Discuss link does). - Ian01 (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I just ran into the same problem. I left my #Section part in there anyway, because I think people know what it means, but the link does not in fact work correctly. It goes to the right page, but not to a section within that page. I'm merging from a specific section, not from a whole article. --Silas Ropac (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the culprit is the {{Pagelist}} template, which has code like


Whatever happened to “keeping it simple” and manually writing out [[target 1#section 1]] and [[target 2#section 2]], rather than having magic words within templates within templates? :P Vadmium (talk, contribs) 06:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC).
As of October 2013, it appears that this bug is still unresolved. Jarble (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
@Vadmium: Another year has passed, and the template is still broken. Does anyone know how to fix this template? Jarble (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don’t know exactly how to fix it. It seems there is now a programming script that generates the bad link at Module:Pagelist. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 06:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

Using the mergeto template, is it possible to suggest a merge to a specific section of an article? I've noticed that {{mergeto|Calculus#Principles}} creates a link to [[Calculus]] instead of creating a link to [[Calculus#Principles]]. Jarble (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

{{Merge to}} uses {{Pagelist}} which uses the magic word PAGENAME, which removes the section, as you can see here: {{PAGENAME:User:Debresser#About_myself}} renders Debresser. Debresser (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
So the answer is no? Ian01 (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I might have just created a requested edit that will eventually lead to this; this request might be step 1 in a step 2 process. I'm going to work on step 2 later (as "step 1" only make a cosmetic change to the template.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
@Steel1943: As of December 27, 2013, this change has not yet been implemented. Has any progress been made since April 2013? Jarble (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
@Steel1943:: It's been one year since my last comment, but the {{merge}} template is still broken. Are there any plans to repair it? Jarble (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jarble: I'm not sure if I'll ever get around to this, but I could pick your brain for a question I have regarding this that may help myself, or someone else editing this template; what should the parameter where the section name can be inputted ... be named? I myself would suggest section=, but that parameter had already been taken on this template. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Steel1943: The article and section should be combined in a single parameter, like this one: Wikipedia#Policies and laws. This is how the section parameter for the {{Content fork}} template works. Jarble (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Using the mergeto template, is it possible to suggest a merge to a specific section of an article?" – All of this article-space template-tweaking in an attempt to communicate the entire content of one's drive-by merge proposal is just further contributing to our merging backlogs. This should not be a substitute for engaging in substantive discussions on the talk page. Yes, it is possible to suggest a merge to a specific section of an article. Make that suggestion on the talk page, please. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Template:Duplication is a template-fork of Template:Merge. The original intent was just to flag obvious content-forks (e.g. biographies of the same person) for priority merging. The mission creep to WP:summary style section-merging has spun the merging backlog out of control. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Add to category switch[edit]

I would like to add to

 ||Talk={{DMC|Articles to be merged|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles to be merged}}
 |#default={{DMC|||Items to be merged}}

as follows:

 ||Talk={{DMC|Articles to be merged|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles to be merged}}
 |Template=[[Items to be merged|ω{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |Category=[[Items to be merged|ω{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |#default=[[Items to be merged|{{PAGENAME}}]]

This in order to easily spot in Category:Items to be merged templates and categories that are tagged with regular merge templates instead of with their more specific merge templates. This is useful for people like me who regularly check Category:Items to be merged for templates or categories and re-tag them correctly if found.

As similar system is in use on Template:Broken ref which sorts in categories like Category:Pages with missing references list, where the result can be seen by way of example.

Note that the use of the straightforward "Items to be merged" category is not a loss compared to using {{DMC}}, since that category is not sorted by date and the incorrectly tagged pages will be visited soon by editors who will surely recognize an invalid date format. If some editors would still consider this problematic then a fork of DMC can be created to convey the |(ω){{PAGENAME}} sorting parameter. Debresser (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

Dandakaranya Development Authority[edit]

This template is used at Dandakaranya Development Authority but it has (Discuss) as a red link. Surely red links should not appear in this kind of template. Is anyone going to do anything about this. If not then please remove it. I give you seven days. Jodosma (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @Jodosma: This talk page is for discussing how to improve or edit the template Template:Merge, not about applications of how/why it was applied on specific pages. I would recommend either starting the merge discussion on Talk:Dandakaranya Project (which is the "red link" you see), or getting in contact with the editor who placed the merge tag to find out why it was placed (the editor being Jonesey95.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Jodosma, there is no mystery here. The {{merge}} template links to a talk page for the merge target by default. When the target Talk page does not exist, the "Discuss" link is red. I have created the Talk page in question anyway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2015 (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)