Template talk:Afd-merge from

message: Should this message box not be pink, like all the other merge-related templates? Gurch 19:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the only merger template that's intended to be placed on talk pages.  As such, it uses the standard talk page template colouring.  —David Levy 21:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour 

message: Should this template be removed from the talk page after performing the merge? If so, should this be stated in the documentation? 
If not, should this template be replaced by a different template which does not add the talk page to the "Articles to be merged since . . ." category.? Or should there be a parameter that could be added to prevent generation of the category.
Example: Talk:Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress is still in the (hidden) :Category:Articles to be merged since April 2007, though the merge has been performed.  
--Boson (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag text and category should reflect that the merge has been done. Unfortunately, there is no . An alternative is , with the AfD result on the redirected article's Talk page, but it is messy with multiple articles. Flatscan (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone really should make the afd-merged-from template. I'm going through :Category:articles to be merged and finding that most of them have already been merged, but no one removed/changed the template. So I'm switching them to  but that's less informative... Stevage 05:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I finally wrote . It should be directly substitutable (diff) once the merge has been completed. Flatscan (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should template be removed after performing the merge? 

message: I am not knowledgeable about template code or else I would do this.  This template should be fixed to use the same category structure as  and :Category:Articles to be merged should then go to WP:CFD.--BirgitteSB 17:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories need fixing 

message: What about articles where the AfD was closed as "merge", but on further consideration there was general consensus that this would not be a good idea after all, so the merge was not done.  For an example, see for instance Talk:Judeo-Christian and Talk:Christianity and Judaism.  After discussion (archived here) there was consensus that merging the latter into the former would not be helpful, so the merge was not done.
But there should probably still be a reference to the AfD discussion.
Would it be appropriate to create a new template, :Template:Afd-merge-from not done ?  Jheald (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merges not done? 

message: This template has a problem - it places the page in an undated merge category. Can it be modified to add a date parameter to be categorized correctly? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you add the date to the template, or wait until a bot comes along to do so, then the category will also be dated. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  In theory, yeah. In practice, no. :Category:Articles to be merged is the undated merge category and I think every single one uses this template. So even if the template can be dated, it isn't being dated. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right. And the reason is an interesting one. The date is added in the ddmmyyyy format, but the category expects a MONTHNAME YEAR format. I'll contact the editor who is responsible for this edit and this kind of things in general, and we'll see what he recommends. Debresser (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  This are talk-page instances. I generally run talk-page stuff (or to be more accurate no main-space stuff) semi-manually because there are more chances of use-mention confusion. Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a talkpage template. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah... misread the page header ... :) Rich Farmbrough, 16:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK the "31 August 2011" is parameter 3, the "August 2011" is paramter "date =". (And they may be non-matching.) Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I know, but it is not in the documentation. Nor is it reasonable to have two date parameters. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category problem 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Afd-merged-from which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 01:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress