Template talk:Merged-from

message: I suggest the user can stablish a period of time the note about the merging is displayed. If none has been stablished by the user, one can show it during 2 months. --Altermike 06:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date

message: I would love to see a nested version of this template - "This article has had material from the following articles merged into it (show)."  Articles like Technology in Stargate would have much tidier talk pages then!  Don't have a clue how to make one; don't know if that would somehow violate GFDL concerns either, but it would be nice!--otherlleft 14:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I had wondered if there were any Talk pages like that. A "multi" template shouldn't cause any problems, as it's the same information in a condensed format, but hiding entries might not be allowed. Similar templates include  and  – maybe the new template could cover those also.  and  are possible starting examples. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wrote . Flatscan (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nested version? 

message: I missed this change from December 2009. I think it would be more appropriate to add a maintenance category if the source page does not exist. Some action needs to be taken: undelete page, update parameter (page move), or removal of this template. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "That page has been deleted." 

message: Contents is like news: its a non-countable noun, and despite the S on the end, it is not the plural of a singular noun, and takes a singular verb.   I suppose correcting bad grammar in a deprecated template is pretty pathetic, but there have been new invocations of it added since the deprecation notice went in.--Jerzy•t 04:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sad news about the singular of "contents" 

message: The documentation recommends both this template and , without explanation. The latter redirects here. --P64 (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of meta 😂 Shushugah (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged4 

message: This template is currently used on 6 category talk pages (e.g. :Category talk:Rock reliefs). (Presumably) the template wasn't written with the intention to be used on such pages and hence (as it doesn't insert the extra colon) it places the talk page in the article category. Should we (1) change the template documentation to make clear that it's not for use on category talk pages, (2) change the template code to not mis-categorize if it is used on a category talk page, or (3) do both? DexDor (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the template to work correctly if used on a category talk page. DexDor (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this template ever be used on category talk pages? 

message: This would be userful especially for newcomers and heavily edited articles. But it also makes thing a lot easier & quicker.
So if the date is set to 26th July 2016 the "its history" wikilink in the template should link to the page's history with the last edit of the day previous and upwards visible. )So for instance 1 edit from 25th July 22 from 26th July and 2 from 27th July.) I'm not sure how you can specify an article-history-link specific to a date though.
--Fixuture (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The template does construct a date-range-to= URL parameter based on the specified date. There are no formatting conversions or checking so I'm not convinced this works reliably. ~Kvng (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Its history" should link to the page's history of the specified date 

message: Currently inside Talk:Program I have two templates 

 which I wish to combine and simplify with something like 
I understand when there are multiple dates, it may be unhandy. 
Shushugah (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to have a combined template for multiple instances of merges from other articles in this way, like  does for AfDs of the article itself. (That template can't be used for this purpose, since it only mentions the article it's on being nominated for deletion, not for another article being AfD-ed and merged into the current article.) Many D&D articles especially tend to have had multiple articles merged into them, so it gets a bit cluttered to have 4+ instances of the  or  templates at the top. V2Blast (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: One possible solution is use . Use , add the various  templates on separate lines below that, and then close the banner holder with . I just did this on Talk:Features of the Marvel Universe and while not perfect, I think it helps. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature request: Multiple merged-froms 

message: Please change the following code:

into .
This will fix LintErrors because of the missing italics end tag for date. Tholme (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 19 June 2019 

message: Does this template go at the top of the talk page? I saw at Talk:Brownie (camera) that it was placed in the middle of the page. Rublov (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:TALKORDER it goes before the first heading, after the WikiProjects. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement? 

message: Please add |name = merged-from on a new line directly after the opening {{tmbox. This adds the box-merged-from class for use with bots and scripts. Chlod (say hi!) 12:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 14:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 27 July 2022 

message: The template has two separate date parameters, the second (unnamed parameter) and . It is probably too late to remove  so they should be aliases somehow or we need to document the function of both parameters. ~Kvng (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The second positional parameter is for the date when the merge took place, it is useful for several reasons, such as providing a jump-in point for the history link, and thus should always be supplied. The undocumented parameter  is for the date that the  tag was added to the talk page. I don't see this as particularly useful; few other talk page banners are so dated. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Redrose64, thanks for the clarification.  puts the supplied date in parens at the end of the message so it wasn't clear to me what that is timestamping. I agree this is not typically useful (or clear) so it makes sense that it remain an undocumented parameter. ~Kvng (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Date parameter