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

[[:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME:target#section}}|target#section]]

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)

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.

PROBLEM...

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)

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)