Template talk:Merge/Archive 3

message: I honestly don't understand why the  template exists. It could easily be superseded by  and , both of which direct merge discussions to a specific talk page, easing the process and allowing consensus to be reached much faster. This template could be changed to guide users to use one or the other. I was just about to place  onto this page, but it's protected. If anyone with more power than me agrees, could you please comment here or finish what I can't? Thankyou :) Jack · talk · 13:46, Sunday, 25 February 2007
:To use  and  is to say that article A should be merged into B (as opposed to merging B into A), i.e. it gives the two articles different "status", which is not always what we want to do. Brian Jason Drake 03:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to my previous comment , see #Reverse merger proposals above. Brian Jason Drake 03:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's far simpler than that... it's a tool some are comfortable with, and who are you to steal a tool from a person's toolbox, costing them time and effort to learn something new, when the outcome is identical. Have the stuff proposed at TFD shouldn't be as it's impolite to ask others such things, and it's hardly an imposition on the systems memory to keep an template around that someone (anyone) finds useful. The biggest problem with most tool templates is that they aren't well documented and easy for laypeople to understand those which are documented. That's what WP:TSP is aimed at fixing. Best regards // FrankB 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for deletion 

message: Not sure where the appropriate place to put this is, but I found the following line in Mass-energy equivalence, which obviously doesn't render very well:

Is this correct usage of this template?
Brian Jason Drake 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special characters 

message: I'm suggesting a merge from an article in the main namespace to one in the Wikipedia namespace using mergefrom, and it inserts the Wikipedia: prefix before the name of the main namespace article, thereby making it a nonexistent link. Don't have time to figure out how to fix.  (For current example (as of this date & time), see Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds/Templates.)  Elf | Talk 04:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template shouldn't assume that merging is always between one namespace, and users may not expect it to fill in the namespace for them. In the case of ,  can be changed to :. But this will ruin other current uses, so I'll subst your particular merge proposal to make it work in the meantime. –Pomte 04:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge templates don't work across namespaces

message: Could someone add an interwiki link to the Irish version of this template at :ga:Teimpléad:DéanCumascLe? --Kwekubo 11:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strike that - just noticed the links are transcluded from Template:Merge/doc. --Kwekubo 11:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Whenever you want to add interwikis you should see if the docs are transcluded, because if they are then no admin intervention is needed. In this case, the interwiki needed to go in  [].  I put it in. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request - addition of interwiki link 

message: I'm trying to get a better understanding of templates by looking at the code of some of them.  Please forgive me if I'm not understanding something, but is it the case that there are too many 'E's at the end of PAGENAME in this template? Right now it says:
    ...]]. (Discuss)
It seems to me it would make more sense for it to be: 
   ...]]. (Discuss)
Does this warrant an 
Thanks! Momazona 02:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra 'E' in talk: {{{PAGENAMEE}}}? 

message: Many times people say "where is this merge being discussed!!?"   I propose that the "Discuss" link point to a specific section of the talk page, based on the template parameter?  Like "#Merge of x".  And if there's already a discussion section or if there's more than one thing being discussed at once, someone can just add an anchor tag within that section to attract the clicks. — Omegatron 02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Discuss" link to a section 

message: Please remove

from this template and change  to . Now that a workaround has been implemented for PNG transparency in Internet Explorer 5.5 and 6, there is no reason to continue to use the less scalable GIF copy. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the outdated message and will switch to the SVG when it's been updated to match the other merger template icons (as the GIF already does).  —David Levy 05:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image update 

message: This template is displaying badly on University of Hull (as an be seen by previewing the article with just the template removed) but I don't know how to fix it. Timrollpickering 22:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad display 

message: Someone apparently decided to change the general format of all the organization templates, that's fine, except that they aren't working.  Places ALL OVER that are using SVG graphics just aren't showing the image, the images still exist, but something isn't working right, and this is far far beyond the scope of what I'm able to fix.  Really, this needs to be dealt with. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a known image issue on the Wikimedia sites.  The timing apparently is an unfortunate coincidence.  —David Levy 05:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry to break the subject, but the "updated" template looks awful. Please revert to the stable version. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Will someone please fix the darn SVG problem

message: The ending of the Mergefrom template, "this page or section", is a bit lame. Can someone add a parameter to distinguish between merging into "this section" from merging into"this article." Of course, not everyone will use the parameter, but at least it will be there for those who do use it. If there is consensus, please add an  tag at the top of this section. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 18:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergefrom: "page or section" 

message: Would an admin mind fixing the "merged" link in these templates?  On May 30, Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages was moved to Help:Merging and moving pages.  This is a well-used/important template and I don't think links in it should lead to redirects.  It probably creates a little extra server strain and we should point people to where the page actually is. Jason McHuff 07:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: .—Random832 15:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "merged" link leads to redirect

message: In the Merge page guidelines it suggests using the  template and placing it on the destination page (rather than a single  template on each page), however, when I did this on Meiko Scientific there is now no notice on the proposed merge pages Meiko Computing Surface and MeikOS. Unless I am missing something shouldn't this template do that automatically? If not what needs to go on those pages, wouldn't   cause category sorting problems if both templates were used?Awotter (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each article must be tagged individually.  The  template is a substitute for two transclusions of the  template on the same page, not for the two separate transclusions of the  template.  I've tagged the articles for you.  —David Levy 21:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!Awotter (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from multiple does template show a message on each proposed page? 

message: THE PAGE PROTECTION TEMPLATE SHOULD BE AT THE TOP of the "merge" template, never at the bottom. Or try having a small version of that protection template instead. You can find it in the Template messages/Maintenance section. This is for the "merge" template.  Your "guide" is in  this page. iaNLOPEZ1115  TaLKBaCK Vandalize it UBX 11:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to the top. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Try putting the page protection template at the top. 

message: Should the date be the date the merge was proposed, or the date the template is being added (in cases where someone suggested a merge but didn't add the template, or added the template to one article but not the other)? I went with the latter at Unageing and Ageless#Media and fiction. --DocumentN (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "date" parameter 

message: The template  should simply say that the page in question is being merged with another. That the one in question is being merged into another article should be an option, but there is no template for the other case where the article in question is the one the other is being merged into (i.e. it is the destination). I think it should be kept as a single template, with the option of adding something to identify which situation applies to a given article. Richard001 (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to take a stab at this since there seem to be no objections. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the change and added some documentation. I also fixed the common merge documentation at Wikipedia:Template messages/Merging and splitting/List while I was at it. Please let me know if there are any issues. Adam McCormick (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rework

message: The "Discuss" link in this template is broken. I would fix it, but it's protected. — NRen2k5(TALK), 23:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How/where is it broken?  Can you link to an example?  —David Levy 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  For example, the Embedded Application Binary Interface uses the "mergeto" template to suggest merging it into Application Binary Interface. I expected the "discuss" link generated by this template to create a link to Talk:Application binary interface. Alas, currently the "discuss" link on Embedded Application Binary Interface is a redlink, to the non-existent "Talk:Application_Binary_Interface". --68.0.124.33 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed. (at least this specific case). Fixed by editing "Embedded Application Binary Interface" to suggest merging it into the "real" article name application binary interface -- rather than the redirect page "Application Binary Interface". Now the "discuss" link on "Embedded Application Binary Interface" sends me to the correct page ("Talk:Application binary interface"). Does that fix the problem that NRen2k5 noticed? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken 

message: Could you please replace the text "This page is" with "This page or section is", in Template:Merging (following the usage in Template:Merge). As an example for the need for it, please see this.
: You can't merge a section into an article - that's called splitting :D.  Seriously I can't think of a legitimate situation in which the disambiguation would be required. Happy‑melon 22:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Usage understood and fixed, thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.254.165 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Merging -- "This page ''or section'' is"

message: : PeterSymonds (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  editprotected 

message: Please add this interwiki to Template:Mergeto: :ro:Format:Uneşte cu (can't add it into the documentation template because it's transcluded from other template's (Template:Merge) documentation). Ark25 (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I figured how to do it: it has 3 interwiki sections, in the same template doc — Template:Merge/doc. Ark25 (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki - ro

message: Someone created a user subpage titled "Herbert Jay Stern".  I added a mergeto tag, proposing merger into the already-existing article Herbert Jay Stern.  It was a red link and when I clicked on it, the new page to be created was "user:Herbert Jay Stern".
: 
That should be considered a bug in this template, IMO. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template failed