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 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)

Adding criteria to template itself[edit]

I propose to add merge criteria code to template itself, just like {{db}}. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

What would the list of criteria codes look like? wbm1058 (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
We can start with the 4 listed here -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I would also be interested in people's thoughts about Template:Duplication. When to use that vs. when to use a template in the {{merge}} family. wbm1058 (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Request to reword template per WP:NDA[edit]

Could I please ask someone who can edit the template, to remove the words "and may be outdated" from the template please? Having those words present is a disclaimer, which is redundant per WP:NDA to the general disclaimers at the bottom of every page. It is not our job to indicate to a user that the content may be outdated, it's their responsibility to research that for themselves. Dane|Geld 18:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a gross violation of WP:Point. Please consider this a gentle warning. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Is this, or is it not, a disclaimer? Simple question. Dane|Geld 21:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be about Template:Merging. While DaneGeld may or may not be trying to prove a point here (I haven't taken the time to form an opinion on that matter), the "and may be outdated" bit does seem unnecessary to that template's purpose of notifying people about a pending merge. Does anyone object to the actual proposal rather than the possible motivations of the person proposing it? Anomie 11:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done. Use Template:Update to flag articles with outdated content. That template is for flagging articles that actually are outdated and need to be updated, but not simply those that may need to be updated. Template:Merging is for combining articles with redundant content, not about updating outdated articles. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI. This advice dates to 2004, and the rationale was indicated in this edit: Also, while the merging takes place, it is recommended that you place the {{merging | target=Target article name}} template on the page that you will merge from (the source page). In this way, confusion will be avoided, as others will know that the source page is outdated, and that all further contributions should be included in the target page. How will others "know" that the source page is outdated, if you tell them that it "may be outdated"? That's not a way to avoid confusion. Merging shouldn't be a process that drags out for months, but unfortunately Template:Merging might encourage that. It's harder to merge a moving target. Yes, further contributions should be included in the target page, but maybe it would be better to use {{in use}} to discourage such "further contributions" until after the merge is completed. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)