Category talk:Articles to be merged/Archive 1

message: Perhaps rather than moving 200 at a time, links to beginning letters (and numbers) would work better? Moogle 05:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has since added the TOC template. -- Beland 18:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TOC

message: How can we mark which ones have been done? FreplySpang (talk) 00:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, I guess. We might have to waive that "no editing comments" thing, though.Brendan62442 03:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template format 

message: Just wondering: How will we know when we are done updating the new template on all of the pages? --Dmcdevit 04:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All articles have been converted now, I think. -- Beland 22:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finished? 

message: I notice the TOC table has a link to go back to the "top" but it's not very helpful as it already IS at the top. Another TOC table and possibly another page turner (next 200, etc) at the bottom of that long list of articles would be really helpful. Unfortunately, I don't have the privs to edit it in. I assume one of the administrators might--could one of you guys please add that in? Or where can I go to request it?  17:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, would be very useful. Orange Goblin 18:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footer: TOC/Next 200 

message: The "how to merge" instructions are pretty confusing. What is the purpose of moving the merged article to /history1? Do we really want to then change that page to be a redirect? It seems to me that simply changing the merged article into a redirect and remarking on the talk page of the destination article would allow access to the history, and not involve creating double redirects, etc. Is there a problem with that I'm not seeing? Simplifying these instructions would probably help get participation. — brighterorange (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge instructions 

message: It would be handy if disputed merges were removed from this page. 138.88.179.138 02:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved Template:MergeDisputed to :Category:Articles with disputed merge proposals.  Articles in this category will move to the new subcategory the next time they are edited.  (Yes, this is a bug.) If you want to force them to move, doing an edit that makes no changes (a "null edit") will work, and will not show up in the edit history. -- Beland 03:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They should all have been null edited by now; I had Pearle poke them.  Enjoy, Beland 04:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed merges 

message: The instructions are to use  for merging categories, but the template's text is specifically for renaming categories, which is not at all the same thing.  A template for moving categories needs to be created.  —Michael Z. 2006-01-18 08:41 Z
:I've fixed this by referencing the correct template. Kcordina 09:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging categories 

message: I am proposing that a bot sorts this category into subcategory by date at Wikipedia talk:Maintenance.  Please coment on the proposal--Rayc 21:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sort by date?

message: Kindly dont merge Classical Homoeopathy article to Homoeopathy. Classical Homoeopathy have a separate identity, which should be mentained.  User:Dbbajpai1945@sify.com
:This sort of comment is best left on a talk page of one of the articles. -- Beland 22:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of classical Homoeopathy 

message: I've begun implementing Merge-by-month categories, in a manner similar to :Category:Cleanup by month and :Category:Articles that need to be wikified. You can see full links on the Category page (expect some templates to be created within the next day or so). I don't think this is a controversial issue, and this has already been requested and approved for bot use, but I just want to bring up the topic here as I begin. Feel free to comment, question, or criticize. alphaChimp(talk) 06:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if you want to stop Alphachimpbot at any time, just post a message on his talk page. alphaChimp(talk) 06:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is great, thanks for doing it. phoebe 04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It appears that some of the sub-pages of that category have been deleted.  In the last few days I've come across a few pages that I've "fixed" the bot-created date stamp to its "proper" date (the date it was actually proposed).  Now all but January, October, and the huge September are there (but many of the links still have the proper months included).  The ones I noticed were still there, but just a few hours later (meaning right now), they're gone. Is this a glitch or is there some reason the ones from June and August were deleted? Or were they all "taken care of" since then and I just happened to add the template change after they were deleted? Thanks. Radagast83 18:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh....i had them tagged for speedy deletion. I've been going through the old merge by month categories and cleaning them out - so merging when a merge was agreed on and removing tags when the merge was oppossed. I thought...they were automatically generated by the template. So i figured i'd tag them for deletion once i emptied the categories. But yes, the deleted categories were all empty when i tagged them. --`/aksha 03:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge by Month 

message: The "WP:MERGE" shortcut redirects to this category.  Shouldn't it instead redirect to WP:MM?  If not, could the Category page include a link to WP:MM? -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is a link to WP:MM on the category page in the 'see also' section.  I would keep the redirect it as it is. Garion96 (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:MERGE redirect 

message: Hi there.  I hope someone reads this.  I have basically no meta-wiki skills so I don't know how I would impliment this but it would be extremely helpful if there were a place to look at all the articles to be merged in one list, either sorted by date, by subject, or not sorted at all.  I thought there used to be a page like that but I can't find it.  Anyway, can someone please let me know if there is such a page, or if not, how to make it or refer it to someone who can?  Thanks!  Avraham 02:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly. You could browse around, or have a look at [http--tools.wikimedia.de-~interiot-cgi-bin-queries-en_to_be_merged]. I'm sure you'll find something to merge :) xCentaur | ☎  08:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please clarify this page

message: Hi all. I've been interested in clearing the backlog here since yesterday (which is when I came across it). Currently, I'm involving myself with clearing Ganeshbot's merge backlog. I've been thinking that it'd be nice to have a bot update the merge progress timeline once a day. Very similar to the functioning of User:CbmBOT. I was thinking of proposing it, but thought I'd try to gain some consensus here first. What say? Btw, I updated the merge progress timeline today, manually. --  aJCfreak yAk 14:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds great. Updating the merge tamplates is extremely tedious and time consuming, and having it update automagically, even once a week would be awesome. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a bot to update the merge progress timeline 

message: Hi,Could some one clarify the basic rules for page redirect since I could no find any guidelines on how, within what period and with who’s involvement a page can be redirected. My question concerns the following type of case: A new article is created and on the same day it is proposed for deletion. After the deletion discussion outcome is not in favour of deletion the same instigators that attempted AfD insert almost immediately page redirect and merge to another article thus removing the article from Wikipedia visibility. A so called majority vote decision for redirect/merge was achieved among the original instigators for AfD within less a day of discussion on the article talk page (in this way minimising possible involvement by other editors)
What is the normal time for discussions on a page redirect and should that be done by uninvolved editors? Thank you for the clarification. --Hittit (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines for Article Merge/Redirect