Template talk:Merge/Archive 2

message: Why do we have both Template:Merge and Template:Mergeto?  Can they be meta-merged?  -- Beland 4 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)
: is used when the merger proponent believes that two or more articles should be merged, but is unsure of which article should survive and incorporate the combined information.   and  are used in conjunction with one another to specify a proposed source and a proposed destination.  Please see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Merging_and_splitting for instructions.  —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)
::I'm not convinced. I've always used  for the purpose you've described for , possibly as I don'think I've ever seen  before. Is this a new guideline? — OwenBlacker July 5, 2005 14:48 (UTC)
:::This setup was introduced in February of 2005.  —Lifeisunfair 5 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
Perhaps we should reword merge to say: "this article and {1} should be merged." or any of the other variant wordings that gets chosen. "this article and {1} {wording}." --MarSch 5 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)
:I don't follow.  What distinction are you drawing?  —Lifeisunfair 5 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
::I think the distinction is that the current wording "1 should be merged with 2" can easily be misinterpreted, confusing  with .  With "1 and 2 should be merged" both 1 and 2 are explicitly on equal grammatical footing, meaning you can't misinterpret the intent as proposing a merge direction.  --Laura Scudder | Talk 8 July 2005 20:04 (UTC)
::*Isn't it generally obvious though that the larger of the two should incorporate the smaller? The main  could be reworded to state that, maybe. Radiant_>|< 10:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
::::It's common for a pair of merge-worthy articles to be approximately the same size, or for the smaller one to have the better title.  —Lifeisunfair 10:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many merge templates

message: OK I don't want to kick all this argument off again but I think the Merge link inthe template should link to Wikipedia:Duplicate articles as it used to rather then Wikipedia:Merge as it does now.  Idealy both pages are important and could be linked to but I think that Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is the most important showing as it does the argy-bargy of mergation rather then a dry discription.  Maybe the two pages could be involved in some amazing Meta-Merge.  If nobody  seems to care in a few day I may change it unilateraly.
Also while I musing something could be done about the problem that a tag is only put on one of the articles meaning that less people are aware of a duplication and a merge takes longer.  Although I don't know a good way to solve this. MeltBanana 20:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge link wrong?

message: The reformatting of these templates so that they appear without the box is causing bizarre indents in articles. Has anyone else noticed this? It may be because I have the "justify text" preference activated. Why was it reformatted anyway?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * The above instructions apply to the Mozilla browsers (Mozilla Suite browser, Firefox, Camino, Netscape 6+), as well as Safari and Konqueror.  In Microsoft Internet Explorer, press Ctrl-F5 (or hold Ctrl while clicking on the "Refresh" icon).  In Opera, press F5.  This page contains additional details.  —Lifeisunfair 08:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, thanks. All is fine now. I should have reviewed the revision history.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New format

message: ;Original very long title line:i just added optional parameters for changing the discussion links to mergefrom and mergeto
i did this to allow for a large block of very similar mergers to be discussed together. Plugwash 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion links 

message: Can someone please replace the existing GIF image with :Image:Merge Arrow.svg? This should be identical in form to the previous image, but as a vector graphic, it's much more scalable and won't pixelate if we want to change the resolution. The page is protected so I can't edit it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 08:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the "svg images" discussion above.  —David Levy 00:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New graphic

message: Why not make a voting thing to merge like in V/AFD --FlareNUKE 00:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained on your talk page, no formal approval process is needed; editors may boldly merge and split pages as they see fit.  In the event of uncertainty or disagreement, a simple discussion (and possibly a straw poll) is the appropriate course of action.  —David Levy 00:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Like AFD 

message: Just a question.  Why do the mergeto/mergefrom/etc templates go on the article page, not on the talk page?  I guess it's a tradeoff between being visible and not, but I would have thought the talk page was more appropriate?  Regards, Ben Aveling 12:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the subject of some debate, and the prevailing sentiment was that it's important to alert readers (not merely editors), particularly given the fact that the other article might contain the information that they seek.  —David Levy 12:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do these go on articles, not talk pages? 

message: Please replace de:Vorlage:Doppeleintrag with de:Vorlage:Mehrfacheintrag and please add el:Πρότυπο:Συγχώνευση (this took me quite a while to find yesterday when I needed it!)
Thanks, --19:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  —David Levy 20:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --22:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interlanguage links 

message: Could we add an optional paramater to the Merge templates that displays the date on which the merge was suggested? For example:
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Article Name. (Discuss) This change was suggested on March 6, 2006.
:Now implemented. Rich Farmbrough, 21:02 30  December 2006 (GMT).
that doesn't show up on for example mergeto on Bismarck Chase. GraemeLeggett 16:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag date 

message: Can anyone change the text to "Discuss this issue on the talk page, or if the article is ready for merging - you may perform the merging." Please see :sv:Mall:Infoga. --221.251.102.59 09:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording was debated (and even voted upon), and we arrived at a compromise between maximum brevity ("This article should be merged with _____.") and maximum specificity (something along the lines of your text, which is far longer than what our consensus dictates).  We do, however, link to Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages, which describes the merger process in great detail.  —David Levy 16:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the text 

message: I found Template:tfm, but it needs to be noticed in this article as well as needing another category for that template. What are other plans for this? —69.227.173.21 11:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In regards with <nowiki>{{tfm}}</nowiki> 

message: as the page is protected, i'd like to ask a sysop to add the portuguese interwiki, :pt:Predefinição:Fusão
Waldir 21:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  —David Levy 21:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Done.  —David Levy 22:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  interwiki 

message: I put  on Wikipedia:How to use tables, and it links to Wikipedia:Help:Table.  Am I missing something? — Omegatron 14:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current setup doesn't accommodate (relatively rare) cross-namespace mergers.  As you figured out, the solution is to substitute the appropriate code.  I'm going to investigate the possibility of implementing a more advanced setup via the use of  ParserFunctions.  —David Levy 18:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Namespaces 

message: This is pretty minor, but irritating. The <noinclude> opening tag is on a new line, meaning the template has one more newline after it than it should. It should be on the same line as the </div>. Hairy Dude 10:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (#Request whitespace edit below). Brian Jason Drake 03:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vertical space 

message: Duplicate of request for Admin Action on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection  See section='Template:Merge (edit|talk|links|history|watch)'
Actually just need this added to its See also section: '* Template:MergeVfD'; this template calls merge, and it's talk page was the oldest item on the merge backlog list, now gone. Thanks fer doin' me 'light work' (<g>) // FrankB 14:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The  template is obsolete.  VfD no longer exists under that name, and we now have  and  for this purpose.  —David Levy 15:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add to 'See Also' 

message: Earlier today, I placed  and  templates on MV Val de Loire and MS King of Scandinavia respectively.  Another user took exception to this, believing that the "to" and "from" should be reversed.  His approach to this was to add  and  templates as well, so each article had both!  I took the decision to remove the second ones for the sake of avoiding confusion and splitting the merger discussion, given the default targets of the "Discuss" links.
The other user is now claiming I was wrong to remove his reverse proposal, despite me giving the above reason in the discussion.  Please could somebody help me here: have I done anything inappropriate?  --RFBailey 00:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have replaced the tags with  (which is used when the direction of the merger is undetermined or disputed).  I took care of this, and I redirected the previously nonexistent Talk:MV Val de Loire to Talk:MS King of Scandinavia.  If the merger occurs in the manner proposed by the other user, Talk:MS King of Scandinavia can be moved to Talk:MV Val de Loire.  If no merger occurs, the redirect can simply be removed or deleted.  —David Levy 17:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you were wrong to remove the reverse tags, it is considered unappropriate and bad Wiketiquette to remove notices from article talk pages and user talk pages especially if you have placed one and another user, disagreeing places another one, am I correct ? The then discussion no longer refers to the one proposal, but both. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise for my error: I should have remembered the  template.  Thanks to David Levy for putting me straight.  --RFBailey 14:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverse merger proposals 

message: Although the image for  itself is great, the images for the mergefrom and mergeto templates have always been somewhat confusing to me. The significance of their icons is not exactly intuitive: it depends entirely on whether you assume that "left" equates with "this article" and "right" with "that article", which, though perhaps more reasonable than the alternative, is still unfortunately ambiguous. I think a more useful image would involve a large diamond (or circle, or whatever), a smaller diamond in the "background" (i.e. shrink and elevate it a bit to give the illusion of depth; maybe even blur it slightly?), and an arrow pointing from one to the other (from the foreground to the background for "merge from", from the background to the foreground for "merge to"). Alternatively, if a simpler image is preferred, "merge from" could be conveyed by simply having an arrow point down from the diamond, thus clearly representing a merge into the text of this article (since the template is placed at the top of the page), and this would also clear up some of the ambiguity of "merge from" by making it less similar-looking to "merge to". -Silence 10:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images for {{tl|mergefrom}} and {{tl|mergeto}}

message: I've protected on the m:Wrong Version until disputes on the talk page here are resolved. Mackensen (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the relevant discussion on Freakofnurture's talk page.  Recalling your recent notation of this issue, I e-mailed you on a related matter.  —David Levy 11:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The protecting admin unprotected the template, and an anon reverted to the GIF icon.  —David Levy 02:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, the "editprotected" here wasn't ideal for this situation. -- Omniplex 03:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Please restore a GIF version working with any visual browser. See also a corresponding section on 
this and my talk page,
and an explanation on WT:Image use policy. -- Omniplex 10:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the relevant discussion on Freakofnurture's talk page.  Recalling your recent notation of this issue, I e-mailed you on a related matter.  —David Levy 11:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The protecting admin unprotected the template, and an anon reverted to the GIF icon.  —David Levy 02:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, the "editprotected" here wasn't ideal for this situation. -- Omniplex 03:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downgrade of [[Template:Mergeto]] 

message: See the mergeto link on Bugnes - the word "Discuss" for some reason links to Talk page - it should instead link to the correct talk page. How did this happen? Stevage 08:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The person who added the merge tag put it that way by using  Had the editor used , it would have defaulted to Talk:Beignet. The optional parameter is there in case you want to differently direct discussion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks. I didn't know it was possible to use the merge template incorrectly :) Stevage 09:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken talk link 

message: Do these templates go at the very top of the article before any maintenance templates, hatnotes or anything else?
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 01:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no explicit rules, so use your best judgement. Personally, I think I'd put it in most cases right at the top. --Swift 00:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage: Exact location 

message: It has been suggested that the section Random Trivia from the  Marques Houston be merged into this  or section. (Discuss)I found out there's no corresponding template that would say
:It has been suggested that this article or section be the section merged into Random Trivia from the article Marques Houston. (Discuss)
You know what I mean?  I mean there should be to tags.100110100 03:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make A New Template 

message: The template has a following <noinclude> block that starts on a new line. This is wrong, as it introduces extra vertical space in articles where there need be none. The opening <noinclude> tag should be on the same line as the end of the template. Hairy Dude 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Konstable 06:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request whitespace edit 

message: ;Original section title line: Template:Mergeto-date Expanding existing templates trimmed on archival date // FrankB 21:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding existing templates 

message: has the discuss linking to the target page.  This doesn't.  That risks messing up a lot of discussions. -- Beardo 06:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Lets just fix it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to have successfully fixed it as you suggested. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Mergeto-date]] Discuss 

message: ;Original long section title:Template:Mergeto-date and Template:Mergefrom-date date trimmed on archive date // FrankB 21:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge-date templates 

message: I just discovered that David Levy shares my concern, and he has had an amicable discussion with the operator of the bot (at User_talk:Alphachimp#merge by month.)  David has also retrofitted a date function to ,  and , though there is no documentation at #Usage yet.  I will drop him a note and ask him to update the docs here.
Note that the template adds the article to a category that may not exist yet.  I suspect we need a template wizard to come up with something that quickly transcludes onto each new Category:Articles to be merged since page.  Is there a Special page that finds category redlinks?
As David said, there seems to have been no harm done; only help.  My thanks to David Levy and Alphachimp.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi!  I thought that we might wait until Alphachimp's bot has changed over the articles before adding the documentation (so as not to confuse people).  In the interim, the changes to the templates have absolutely no effect on their use.  —David Levy 20:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date functionality 

message: :de:Vorlage:Mehrfacheintrag should be replaced by :de:Vorlage:Redundanz 62.245.161.54 21:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deutsch (German) 

message: Please add czech interwiki :cs:Šablona:Sloučit . --Nolanuss 02:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  czech interwiki [[:cs:Šablona:Sloučit]] 

message: I have come up with one template that I think might be useful as it would replace all the different merge templates with one. It can be found right now at User:Timrem/Template:Merge. It can be used just like the merge template currently works (aka , or rather ), but also works by using "to", "from", "section", etc. as parameters, such as , , etc. I made a full usage table at User talk:Timrem/Template:Merge. I'm open to comments as to if this is a good idea or not and to suggestions as to how to make this function better. Let me know what you think about replacing the current templates with mine. Thanks. --Timrem 21:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't really say I like it. It makes the syntax more complex to use, and it's not like  and  are all that difficult to remember. If you want to change their underlying wikicode, fine, but leave the mnemonic names alone. --Gwern  (contribs) 04:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Single-template Proposal

message: Please, add sl:Predloga:Združi. Thanks a lot. --Eleassar my talk 11:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but it didn't involve editing a protected page. The interwikis are at Template:Merge/doc. Kusma (討論) 16:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki