Template talk:Merge

From Role Players Resource

(Redirected from Template talk:Merge from)

{{#ifeq:{{subst:substcheck}}|SUBST 

|{{
 {{#switch:
 {{#if: 
   | 
   | {{#if: 
     | 
       {{#ifeq:|
       | talk
       |  
       }}
     | 
       {{#ifeq:template talk|template talk
       | talk
       | template 
       }}
     }}
   }}

| main | = ambox | talk = tmbox | user = ombox | wikipedia = ombox | file | image = imbox | mediawiki = ombox | template = ombox | help = ombox | category = cmbox | portal = ombox | book = ombox | other | #default = ombox

}} | type = content | image = File:Stop hand nuvola.svg | imageright = | class = | style = | textstyle =

| text =

It seems that the WikiProject Merge banner has been substituted on this page instead of being transcluded. Please undo the edit and type {{{{#if: | |WikiProject Merge }}}} instead. | small = | smallimage = | smallimageright = | smalltext = | subst = | date = | name = }} }}{{#ifeq:Template talk|Template |{{#if:Template:WPBannerMeta/istemplate |Template:WPBannerMeta/locwarning }} }}{{WPBannerMeta/{{#if:Template:WPBannerMeta/istemplate |templatepage |core }} |PROJECT = Merge |BANNER_NAME={{#if: |{{{BANNER_NAME}}} |Template:WikiProject Merge }} |substcheck={{subst:substcheck}} |small = Template:Yesno |category = Template:Yesno |listas = |PROJECT_LINK = {{#if: |{{{PROJECT_LINK}}} |Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge }} |PROJECT_NAME = {{#if: |{{{PROJECT_NAME}}} |WikiProject Merge }} |IMAGE_LEFT = PMG logo.svg |IMAGE_RIGHT = |IMAGE_LEFT_SIZE = {{#if:Template:Yesno |{{#if:|{{{IMAGE_LEFT_SMALL}}}|40px}} |{{#if:70px|70px|80px}} }} |IMAGE_RIGHT_SIZE = {{#if:Template:Yesno |{{#if:|{{{IMAGE_RIGHT_SMALL}}}|40px}} |{{#if:|{{{IMAGE_RIGHT_LARGE}}}|80px}} }} |QUALITY_SCALE = |class = Template:WPBannerMeta/class |auto=¬ |AUTO_ASSESS_CAT = {{#switch: |=Automatically assessed Merge articles |none= |#default={{{AUTO_ASSESS_CAT}}} }} |IMPORTANCE_SCALE = |importance = Template:WPBannerMeta/importance |IMPN = {{#ifeq:¬|¬ |{{#ifeq:¬|¬ |importance |priority }} |importance }} |ASSESSMENT_LINK = {{#switch: | = {{#ifexist:{{#if: |{{{PROJECT_LINK}}} |Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge }}/Assessment |{{#if: |{{{PROJECT_LINK}}} |Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge }}/Assessment | }} |no = |#default = {{{ASSESSMENT_LINK}}} }} |RAW_ASSESSMENT_LINK = |ASSESSMENT_CAT = {{#if: |{{{ASSESSMENT_CAT}}} |Merge articles }} |MAIN_TEXT = This Template:Pagetype is within the scope of WikiProject Merge, an attempt to reduce the articles to be merged backlog and improve the merging process. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |MAIN_ARTICLE = |PORTAL = |MAIN_CAT = WikiProject Merge pages |attention =Template:Yesno |ATTENTION_CAT = {{#switch: |=Merge articles needing attention |none= |#default={{{ATTENTION_CAT}}} }} |infobox =Template:Yesno |INFOBOX_CAT = {{#switch: |=Merge articles needing infoboxes |none= |#default={{{INFOBOX_CAT}}} }} |note 1 =Template:Yesno |N_1_TEXT = |N_1_IMAGE = |N_1_CAT = |N_1_FORMAT = |note 2 =Template:Yesno |N_2_TEXT = |N_2_IMAGE = |N_2_CAT = |N_2_FORMAT = |note 3 =Template:Yesno |N_3_TEXT = |N_3_IMAGE = |N_3_CAT = |N_3_FORMAT = |note 4 =Template:Yesno |N_4_TEXT = |N_4_IMAGE = |N_4_CAT = |N_4_FORMAT = |note 5 =Template:Yesno |N_5_TEXT = |N_5_IMAGE = |N_5_CAT = |N_5_FORMAT = |note 6 =Template:Yesno |N_6_TEXT = |N_6_IMAGE = |N_6_CAT = |N_6_FORMAT = |note 7 =Template:Yesno |N_7_TEXT = |N_7_IMAGE = |N_7_CAT = |N_7_FORMAT = |note 8 =Template:Yesno |N_8_TEXT = |N_8_IMAGE = |N_8_CAT = |N_8_FORMAT = |note 9 =Template:Yesno |N_9_TEXT = |N_9_IMAGE = |N_9_CAT = |N_9_FORMAT = |note 10 =Template:Yesno |N_10_TEXT = |N_10_IMAGE = |N_10_CAT = |N_10_FORMAT = |NOTE_SIZE = {{#if: |{{{NOTE_1_SIZE}}} |x25px }} |COMMENTS = |COMMENTS_CAT = {{#switch: |=Merge articles with comments |none= |#default= }} |COMMENTS_SHOW_INLINE = |BOTTOM_TEXT = |COLLAPSED = ¬ |COLLAPSED_HEAD = {{#if: |{{{COLLAPSED_HEAD}}} |More information: }} |tf 1=Template:Yesno |TF_1_LINK = |TF_1_NAME = |TF_1_NESTED = |TF_1_IMAGE = |TF_1_TEXT = |TF_1_QUALITY = |TF_1_MAIN_CAT = |tf 1 importance=¬ |TF_1_ASSESSMENT_CAT = |tf 2=Template:Yesno |TF_2_LINK = |TF_2_NAME = |TF_2_NESTED = |TF_2_IMAGE = |TF_2_TEXT = |TF_2_QUALITY = |TF_2_MAIN_CAT = |tf 2 importance=¬ |TF_2_ASSESSMENT_CAT = |tf 3=Template:Yesno |TF_3_LINK = |TF_3_NAME = |TF_3_NESTED = |TF_3_IMAGE = |TF_3_TEXT = |TF_3_QUALITY = |TF_3_MAIN_CAT = |tf 3 importance=¬ |TF_3_ASSESSMENT_CAT = |tf 4=Template:Yesno |TF_4_LINK = |TF_4_NAME = |TF_4_NESTED = |TF_4_IMAGE = |TF_4_TEXT = |TF_4_QUALITY = |TF_4_MAIN_CAT = |tf 4 importance=¬ |TF_4_ASSESSMENT_CAT = |tf 5=Template:Yesno |TF_5_LINK = |TF_5_NAME = |TF_5_NESTED = |TF_5_IMAGE = |TF_5_TEXT = |TF_5_QUALITY = |TF_5_MAIN_CAT = |tf 5 importance=¬ |TF_5_ASSESSMENT_CAT = |TF_SIZE = {{#if: |{{{TF_1_SIZE}}} |x25px }} |HOOK_NESTED = |HOOK_ASSESS = |HOOK_IMPORTANCE = |HOOK_TF = |HOOK_NOTE = |HOOK_BOTTOM = |HOOK_COLLAPSED = {{#iferror:{{#expr:0+¬*1}} |{{#if: |1 |0 }} }} |RAW_HOOK_COLLAPSED = }} Template:Central Template:Permprot Template:Tfdend Template:Archive box This talk page is for the discussion of the following templates:

Please be clear in your comments which template you are referring to. Only some of these templates have been protected. But since these templates should work similarly, please discuss any changes on this talk page first. Any user can edit the documentation, add interwikis and categories, since as usual the /doc sub-pages are not protected.

Contents

Change something in there?

Template:Editprotected "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with (other article)" Can I have the word "should" into there please? I'm deciding to correct it grammar. Then it would look like this. "It has been suggested that this article or section should be merged with (other article)" Thank you. StormContent (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The current wording is grammatically correct; see English subjunctive. Ucucha (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion link

The template defaults to creating a link to the target page's talk page. (E.g. if I place on "Article A" {{mergeto|Article B}} with no specific "discuss=" parameter, the default action is to link to Talk:Article B.) However, when I propose that Article A be merged into Article B, it is usually because Article A is insufficient to remain as a standalone article and would be better included as a section of Article B. Since this issue is directly related to Article A, I believe the default discussion should occur at Talk:Article A. Thoughts? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Empty {{Merge}}

I have suggested to SmackBot's author that it should do something different when {{Merge}} does not specify where to merge to. The template should also be adjusted to highlight that it needs an article to merge to. I don't have a specific suggestion on what it should do, but the current version does seem to be ignored by a handful of people. In one case there has even been discussion added when the page has been specified there (where I fixed the issue), but otherwise I just deleted the template [1][2][3], and suggested SmackBot does the same, with a note to the adding editor (which I only did for the only recent merge suggestion). Mark Hurd (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That is an idea. We could start by making it more clear in the documentation, that a merge candidate must be added. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The examples already included OtherPage, so that is why my first thought was that the bot(s) that automatically date these templates should handle untargeted templates differently. I have now added OtherPage to the first references as well, and some other updates, including adding these wrong cases to Testcases. Mark Hurd (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly do-able, although it would require a BRFA since it would be both removing templates and writing to user talk pages, it would also involve digging in history, which the bot doesn't do right now. An quick alternative would be to throw an error if no parameter 1 is specified. Rich Farmbrough, 21:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC).
{{Merge partner}} already does this, placing the articles in Category:Articles for merging with no partner. Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC).
Yes, I saw this issue because of that category (I linked to it above under handful of people). What I saw as a problem was that {{Merge}} templates that don't mention any target don't currently highlight this mistake in anyway (other than this category, which isn't very obvious), and the bot comes along and dates the template as if nothing was wrong.
I've updated the sandboxes of {{Merge}}, {{Merge to}}, {{Merge from}}, and {{Merge partner}} where I added something visible when {{Merge partner}} does its thing and the end of the Mbox needed changing to include the possible output of {{Merge partner}}. You can review the testcases. Mark Hurd (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The two incidents I just covered from Category:Articles for merging with no partner were added using Twinkle. I have notified the developers on the talk page. Mark Hurd (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Template example is bad

I added a note to the template example because of the sentence immediately before it which says to "do so at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion", which says to use {{Tfm}} for templates. User:Debresser undid this change with edit summary "1. Bad English. 2. What does this mean. 3. Superfluous." even though my edit summary included "emphasise Template: example is 'bad'". Mark Hurd (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I only now understand what you meant. Still the English was bad (using "re" for "regarding"). But the main thing is that you are right, and that the example should be replaced. Not add a note, replace it with a good example. I did so. Please have a look, and tel me what you think. Debresser (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that is fine (once I adjusted it slightly). And, yes, I realised this looked a little strong, but I felt it was better than putting it on your talk page, and changing the example was where I was probably heading anyway. Mark Hurd (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit notice or something

I think that we have gotten to the point where we need to set up something where it prompts users to propose why they want this merged or they shouldn't add it at all. We have over 16,000 proposed merge articles backlogged over three years, with around half having no reason for being merged. This is something that needs attention as it is causing many articles to be needlessly templated, something which we should be avoiding. If not, a bot that will remove this template from articles which have no merge rationale because this backlog is getting absurd and most people are being turned away because of its size. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is some merges are probably "obvious" to the person who put in the template, but not necessarily clear cut for the people who might actually attempt it. Other merges have the problem that it is not clear which way the merge should go. And some merges get smatterings of support and/or oppose over the years and are never concluded. I'd support a simple deletion of the merge templates, with a corresponding addition on the talk page of a "Too old" or "No consensus" note, of any merge request more than a year old, preferably with the editor that placed the template warned. Mark Hurd (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I would agree if there was no discussion, but if there is a discussion properly pointed to in the discuss= field, and no one other than the proposer commented, then the merge should probably go through. I don't see a good way to mechanically determine much other than the presence of the discuss= field. Now, of course, if the bot setting the date= field fills in the discuss= field, then even that would be lost. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem is a default (i.e. no) discuss field works fine for two of the three templates here, and just points to the talk page. There may be a valid discussion there somewhere... Mark Hurd (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay...who wants to go ahead and help clear out everything with me? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a thought: what if we make the merge process more like Wikipedia:Requested moves? Someone proposes a merge, the other pages are notified, and a discussion with a fixed period occurs. hare j 16:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, let's do that! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like that, but, if that's done, and if there's no objection, even if only the proponent is in favor, then he/she should be permitted to perform the merge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
See, the downside of that is that someone one who has an agenda would easily be able to start merging pages with one vote. Some of the pages that I have seen (well, most) really should not be merged. Then again, making the process like that will cut down on this number issue significantly, but even then, there would be a few that might be messed up. All in all, the benefits of this new system greatly outweigh the risks. So, how should we start? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
This has been proposed and rejected in the past.
In terms of implementation, a merger suggestion has more in common with a {{cleanup}} request than it does with a move request. Unlike a page move, one can't simply press a button and accomplish the desired task. Mergers often require considerable care and effort (ideally on the part of someone familiar with the material). And while someone who wishes to rename an article usually has a specific title in mind, merger proponents sometimes are unsure of precisely what, where, or even if to merge (which is why they insert tags instead of boldly proceeding and addressing any resultant objections).
Therefore, significantly more discussion often is required, and there's no benefit in setting an arbitrary time period (given the likelihood that affirmative decisions wouldn't immediately be implemented anyway). —David Levy 19:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, do you think that we should open a formal discussion or something? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding what, specifically? —David Levy 22:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding if there should be a mandatory "reason" parameter in merge templates. If I understand correctly. Debresser (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah. I suppose that the best course of action would be to continue the discussion here and post a pointer at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and/or Template:Centralized discussion. —David Levy 02:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll get to doing that eventually. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposing merges between namespaces

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Saturdays' third album was created when the album was just a twinkle in Polydor's eye. Now the album has been released, it has its own article, On Your Radar (album). Rather than just deleting the incubated article, I feel that it may contain some good material that could be merged into the other. (I don't have the knowledge or time to do this merge myself.)
I tried to add a Merge to template to the incubated article, but it just shows a red link to On Your Radar (album). Similarly, adding a Merge from template going the other way would also give a red link.
I presume that linking between namespaces causes difficulties. Adding "en:" before the article name hasn't helped. Any ideas? Bazonka (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Help:Merging#Caveats explains that you shouldn't add the WP prefix: When proposing a merger of pages within "Wikipedia" namespace (any pages that begin with the "Wikipedia:" prefix), do not include this prefix in the parameter. mabdul 12:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd seen that, but I thought I'd give it a go anyway. Also, I note that this issue has been discussed before (see talkpage archives), and not satisfactorily resolved. Bazonka (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Avoid blank line at end

Template:Edit protected

Please put the {{Merge partner}} stuff on the same line as the preceding closing “}}”, as I have done in the sandbox (Template:Diff2). It means you can write

{{merge|somewhere}}
 
Article text

without an unusually large gap being rendered in between.

Vadmium (talk, contribs) 01:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. Standard removal of whiteline from templates. Debresser (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Template:Done. Can someone please explain why {{merge partner}} is a separate template rather than a part of this code anyway? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Possibly so that it can be used with other merge templates. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, software engineering principle of encapsulation. (Which is not without its problems when templating on WP, but that really more concerns stuff like cite, convert and project banners.) Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

Multiple merge possibilities?

I'm working on an article that I think should be merged, but I'm not sure which of two different articles it should be merged into.

On Ryan Sharma, if I add:

  • {{merge to|People's Republic (novel)|List of CHERUB characters}}
I get:
Template:Quote

or

  • {{merge to|People's Republic (novel)}}
    {{merge to|List of CHERUB characters}}
I get:
Template:Quote

What I'd prefer is something that says

Template:Quote
Is there a template that does something like this, or is the latter my best option? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://72.14.177.54/role_players_resource/Template_talk:Merge"
Personal tools