![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please put the {{Merge partner}} stuff on the same line as the preceding closing “}}”, as I have done in the sandbox ( 462997367). It means you can write
without an unusually large gap being rendered in between.
Vadmium ( talk, contribs) 01:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
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? WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
For an example, see List of streetcar systems in the United States. I propose changing
destination
in Template:merging to
{{#ifeq: {{lc:{{{dir|}}}}} | from | source | destination }}
- Colfer2 ( talk) 15:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
ok, here is a thought that, to me, seems obvious & (with respect) LONG overdue:
how about having both (or all) "sides" of one proposed merge point to the SAME discussion?
for extra credit, the template could add a link on the talkpages of the other affected article(s)...
Lx 121 ( talk) 22:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Lx 121, that sounds like a good idea. How could we improve things to make that happen? Perhaps we just need better documentation? Templates already handle most of the work when I see 2 pages that I suspect cover the same subject:
{{
merge from|blood pump}}
" on one page
[5], and "{{
merge to|ventricular assist device}}
" on another page
[6].(Is there a better way to more-or-less automatically send everyone to the SAME merge discussion?)
This is more-or-less the sequence of events suggested by the documentation pages ( Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger and WP:MERGEPROP and Template:Merge/doc), except those pages suggest manually adding a "discuss" parameter to send everyone to the same discussion. When well-meaning editors try to follow the instructions to add a "discuss" parameter, alas, sometimes they accidentally put a slightly different "discuss" parameter in the merge template on the two pages they want to merge, which ends up splitting the discussion about a single merger over two different pages. [7] [8] Adding that parameter is more error-prone than using the shiny new {{ merge from}} and {{ merge to}} templates, which automatically send everyone to the same discussion, with less work.
How can we improve the documentation to recommend a less error-prone process, without making the documentation unnecessarily complicated? -- DavidCary ( talk) 19:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
mergeto|Article B}}
{{
mergefrom|Article A}}
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}}
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into People's Republic (novel) and List of CHERUB characters.
or
{{merge to|People's Republic (novel)}}
{{merge to|List of CHERUB characters}}
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into People's Republic (novel). ( Discuss)
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into List of CHERUB characters. ( Discuss)
What I'd prefer is something that says
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into People's Republic (novel) ( Discuss) or List of CHERUB characters ( Discuss)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This edit request is more of a cosmetic change to the way that the Template:Merge, Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from templates will appear when they are posted on pages/articles or sections, respectively. I have found a way, using syntax, to be able to specify that the merge to/from request is in relation to a section or a page. In other words, rather than the templates stating "It has been suggested that this page/article or section...", I have developed syntax that will allow the templates to state "It has been suggested that this page..." or "It has been suggested that this section..." (on Merge and Merge to), or "...be merged into this page." or "...be merged into this section." (on Merge from). By default, this edit request will leave the templates stating "page/article" without mention of the "section" wording. Anyways, without further ado, here is my edit request: Please replace this text in these templates:
{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|page|article}} or section
...with this text...
{{#ifeq:{{yesno|{{{section|}}}|yes=1}}|1|section|{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|page|article}}}}
...this request will allow the editor to put a new "section" qualifier; when this qualifier's value is "yes", the word in the templates will display as "section" instead of "page/article". My edit request, as worded, also makes it so that these templates will never be worded as "page or section", but instead will specifically state "page/article" or "section" by itself. Also, this edit request has been tested on Template:Merge/sandbox, Template:Merge to/sandbox and Template:Merge from/sandbox. And, of course, I will update the doc files if this edit request is accepted.
P.S. If you would rather the "or section" wording remain, you could use this line instead:
{{#ifeq:{{yesno|{{{section|}}}|yes=1}}|1|section|{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|page or section|article or section}}}}
Thank you in advance. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
|section=
parameter and updated the sandboxes. —
Bility (
talk)
17:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update {{ Merge}} with the Template:Merge/sandbox version. Use of this new version is demonstrated at Template:Demonic Toys and Template:The Demonic Toys series. Thank you, Wbm1058 ( talk) 13:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Can't we just have a {{ move}} and/or {{ move to}} template that can be placed at the header of a page? Yes, I know all about Template:Requested_move, but that's the talk page discussion template. I'm talking about the little templates at the beginning of an article, similar to {{ merge}} as in –
Obviously, I am not talking about changing brand names or whatever, but mostly events, such as Protests against suppression of Cantonese speaking tradition, which was eventually redirected to Guangzhou Television Cantonese controversy.
Possible? BigSteve ( talk) 16:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
{{merge|{{{1|}}}|small=left}}
which seems ineffective now but used to display as specified. Any ideas what change caused it to break? Thx. Fgnievinski ( talk) 15:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add to
{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}} ||Talk={{DMC|Articles to be merged|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles to be merged}} |#default={{DMC|||Items to be merged}} }}
as follows:
{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}} ||Talk={{DMC|Articles to be merged|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles to be merged}} |Template=[[Items to be merged|ω{{PAGENAME}}]] |Category=[[Items to be merged|ω{{PAGENAME}}]] |#default=[[Items to be merged|{{PAGENAME}}]] }}
This in order to easily spot in Category:Items to be merged templates and categories that are tagged with regular merge templates instead of with their more specific merge templates. This is useful for people like me who regularly check Category:Items to be merged for templates or categories and re-tag them correctly if found.
As similar system is in use on Template:Broken ref which sorts in categories like Category:Pages with missing references list, where the result can be seen by way of example.
Note that the use of the straightforward "Items to be merged" category is not a loss compared to using {{
DMC}}, since that category is not sorted by date and the incorrectly tagged pages will be visited soon by editors who will surely recognize an invalid date format. If some editors would still consider this problematic then a fork of DMC can be created to convey the |(ω){{PAGENAME}}
sorting parameter.
Debresser (
talk)
09:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I added a {{
merge to}} to the article
Egr vs scr as part of my proposal that it be merged into the
Emissions section of the article
diesel engine. I specified the destination and discussion as follows: {{Merge to|Diesel engine#Emissions|discuss=Talk:Diesel engine#Merger proposal: article Egr vs scr into section Emissions|date=January 2013}}
. However, on the resulting tag, the destination link appears as Diesel engine#Emissions but links to
diesel engine, when it should link to the correct section of the article (like the Discuss link does). -
Ian01 (
talk)
07:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
[[:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME:target#section}}|target#section]]
Using the mergeto template, is it possible to suggest a merge to a specific section of an article? I've noticed that {{mergeto|Calculus#Principles}} creates a link to [[Calculus]] instead of creating a link to [[Calculus#Principles]]. Jarble ( talk) 21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
section=
, but that parameter had already been taken on this template.
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
"Using the mergeto template, is it possible to suggest a merge to a specific section of an article?
" – All of this article-space template-tweaking in an attempt to communicate the entire content of one's drive-by merge proposal is just further contributing to our merging backlogs. This should not be a substitute for engaging in substantive discussions on the talk page. Yes, it is possible to suggest a merge to a specific section of an article. Make that suggestion on the talk page, please.
Wbm1058 (
talk)
14:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
By the way, Template:Duplication is a template-fork of Template:Merge. The original intent was just to flag obvious content-forks (e.g. biographies of the same person) for priority merging. The mission creep to WP:summary style section-merging has spun the merging backlog out of control. Wbm1058 ( talk) 15:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This template is used at Dandakaranya Development Authority but it has (Discuss) as a red link. Surely red links should not appear in this kind of template. Is anyone going to do anything about this. If not then please remove it. I give you seven days. Jodosma (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
{{ Merge sections}} may be modified to avoid duplicating {{ Merge}}, provided it's backwards compatible -- the section=y part cannot be lost; also it used to support small=y, which seems broken. Fgnievinski ( talk) 16:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Would anyone have any objection to having a bot remove merge templates on pages where there is a merge template placed on a page and no one opens up a discussion on why they placed the tag? I know that we are allowed to remove templates if there is no discussion, but there is currently no thing on this page that allows for people to remove the templates if both pages are tagged and there is no discussion, but I don't want to amend it on this page unless there is consensus to do so. I also have left a note on the bot request page to have someone do that, just so people are aware. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 22:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
We have an ongoing problem where the default use of these templates gives a link to a merge discussion that addresses a Talk: page, but not a section within that Talk: page. (Thankfully they do now at least point to the same page.)
I suggest that {{ Merge to}} should use the following to default its discuss parameter:
[[{{{discuss|Talk: {{{1}}}#Merge of {{PAGENAME}}}}]]
Similarly for {{ Merge from}}, but transposed appropriately. If multiple merge targets are used, dropping the defaulting and relying on the editor setting it manually would be reasonable. Such cases are rare. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
PROBLEM...
So 1) Fix the template section linking, 2) fix the help making such mandatory, 3) install error messaging in the template (After an interval when a hidden category lists those with invalid section links... cleaned up, then add the errors) Best regards! // Fra nkB 16:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Merge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "suggested" to "proposed" — Music1201 talk 03:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
|target=
, not for |1=
, |2=
, .. |20=
. The current implementation using {{
Pagelist}} assumes that all 20 pages are in the same namespace as the original, and if we're deviating from that, allowing any namespaces, that would be a bigger change. Is there consensus for that? —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
22:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)|nspace=
from this template to {{
Pagelist}} to make the 20 links change namespace together (which may be valid, since it's unlikely a request will come along asking to merge a page with a Wikipedia-namespace page and a Portal page, for example). Do you see a simpler solution? Or do you think module pagelist could be changed to be namespace-sensitive? —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
06:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)|nspace=all
as a special case. The change is queued up at
Module:Pagelist/sandbox and
Template:Merge/sandbox. Although I'm on semiwikibreak, I'll sync this if there are no complaints. —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
17:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I just proposed merging Wikipedian of the Year and Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year using these templates, but the links in the template don't seem to work right - from the main namespace, the link shows up in the text of the template OK, but the link just links back to the mainspace article. From the other, I can't seem to point it towards mainspace - it assumes that the destination article is in Wikipedia: namespace. Fortunately, the discussion links seem to work OK. Any chance this behaviour could be fixed so that cross-namespace mergers are supported, please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 15:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
2=Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year
.
Debresser (
talk)
19:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
1=Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year
. By the way, next time it would really help if you would inform us at what article the problem occurs.
Debresser (
talk)
11:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Could I please ask someone who can edit the template, to remove the words "and may be outdated" from the template please? Having those words present is a disclaimer, which is redundant per WP:NDA to the general disclaimers at the bottom of every page. It is not our job to indicate to a user that the content may be outdated, it's their responsibility to research that for themselves. Dane| Geld 18:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, while the merging takes place, it is recommended that you place the {{merging | target=Target article name}} template on the page that you will merge from (the source page). In this way, confusion will be avoided, as others will know that the source page is outdated, and that all further contributions should be included in the target page.How will others "know" that the source page is outdated, if you tell them that it "may be outdated"? That's not a way to avoid confusion. Merging shouldn't be a process that drags out for months, but unfortunately Template:Merging might encourage that. It's harder to merge a moving target. Yes, further contributions should be included in the target page, but maybe it would be better to use {{ in use}} to discourage such "further contributions" until after the merge is completed. – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please put the {{Merge partner}} stuff on the same line as the preceding closing “}}”, as I have done in the sandbox ( 462997367). It means you can write
without an unusually large gap being rendered in between.
Vadmium ( talk, contribs) 01:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
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? WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
For an example, see List of streetcar systems in the United States. I propose changing
destination
in Template:merging to
{{#ifeq: {{lc:{{{dir|}}}}} | from | source | destination }}
- Colfer2 ( talk) 15:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
ok, here is a thought that, to me, seems obvious & (with respect) LONG overdue:
how about having both (or all) "sides" of one proposed merge point to the SAME discussion?
for extra credit, the template could add a link on the talkpages of the other affected article(s)...
Lx 121 ( talk) 22:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Lx 121, that sounds like a good idea. How could we improve things to make that happen? Perhaps we just need better documentation? Templates already handle most of the work when I see 2 pages that I suspect cover the same subject:
{{
merge from|blood pump}}
" on one page
[5], and "{{
merge to|ventricular assist device}}
" on another page
[6].(Is there a better way to more-or-less automatically send everyone to the SAME merge discussion?)
This is more-or-less the sequence of events suggested by the documentation pages ( Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger and WP:MERGEPROP and Template:Merge/doc), except those pages suggest manually adding a "discuss" parameter to send everyone to the same discussion. When well-meaning editors try to follow the instructions to add a "discuss" parameter, alas, sometimes they accidentally put a slightly different "discuss" parameter in the merge template on the two pages they want to merge, which ends up splitting the discussion about a single merger over two different pages. [7] [8] Adding that parameter is more error-prone than using the shiny new {{ merge from}} and {{ merge to}} templates, which automatically send everyone to the same discussion, with less work.
How can we improve the documentation to recommend a less error-prone process, without making the documentation unnecessarily complicated? -- DavidCary ( talk) 19:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
mergeto|Article B}}
{{
mergefrom|Article A}}
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}}
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into People's Republic (novel) and List of CHERUB characters.
or
{{merge to|People's Republic (novel)}}
{{merge to|List of CHERUB characters}}
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into People's Republic (novel). ( Discuss)
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into List of CHERUB characters. ( Discuss)
What I'd prefer is something that says
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into People's Republic (novel) ( Discuss) or List of CHERUB characters ( Discuss)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This edit request is more of a cosmetic change to the way that the Template:Merge, Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from templates will appear when they are posted on pages/articles or sections, respectively. I have found a way, using syntax, to be able to specify that the merge to/from request is in relation to a section or a page. In other words, rather than the templates stating "It has been suggested that this page/article or section...", I have developed syntax that will allow the templates to state "It has been suggested that this page..." or "It has been suggested that this section..." (on Merge and Merge to), or "...be merged into this page." or "...be merged into this section." (on Merge from). By default, this edit request will leave the templates stating "page/article" without mention of the "section" wording. Anyways, without further ado, here is my edit request: Please replace this text in these templates:
{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|page|article}} or section
...with this text...
{{#ifeq:{{yesno|{{{section|}}}|yes=1}}|1|section|{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|page|article}}}}
...this request will allow the editor to put a new "section" qualifier; when this qualifier's value is "yes", the word in the templates will display as "section" instead of "page/article". My edit request, as worded, also makes it so that these templates will never be worded as "page or section", but instead will specifically state "page/article" or "section" by itself. Also, this edit request has been tested on Template:Merge/sandbox, Template:Merge to/sandbox and Template:Merge from/sandbox. And, of course, I will update the doc files if this edit request is accepted.
P.S. If you would rather the "or section" wording remain, you could use this line instead:
{{#ifeq:{{yesno|{{{section|}}}|yes=1}}|1|section|{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|page or section|article or section}}}}
Thank you in advance. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
|section=
parameter and updated the sandboxes. —
Bility (
talk)
17:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update {{ Merge}} with the Template:Merge/sandbox version. Use of this new version is demonstrated at Template:Demonic Toys and Template:The Demonic Toys series. Thank you, Wbm1058 ( talk) 13:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Can't we just have a {{ move}} and/or {{ move to}} template that can be placed at the header of a page? Yes, I know all about Template:Requested_move, but that's the talk page discussion template. I'm talking about the little templates at the beginning of an article, similar to {{ merge}} as in –
Obviously, I am not talking about changing brand names or whatever, but mostly events, such as Protests against suppression of Cantonese speaking tradition, which was eventually redirected to Guangzhou Television Cantonese controversy.
Possible? BigSteve ( talk) 16:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
{{merge|{{{1|}}}|small=left}}
which seems ineffective now but used to display as specified. Any ideas what change caused it to break? Thx. Fgnievinski ( talk) 15:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add to
{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}} ||Talk={{DMC|Articles to be merged|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles to be merged}} |#default={{DMC|||Items to be merged}} }}
as follows:
{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}} ||Talk={{DMC|Articles to be merged|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles to be merged}} |Template=[[Items to be merged|ω{{PAGENAME}}]] |Category=[[Items to be merged|ω{{PAGENAME}}]] |#default=[[Items to be merged|{{PAGENAME}}]] }}
This in order to easily spot in Category:Items to be merged templates and categories that are tagged with regular merge templates instead of with their more specific merge templates. This is useful for people like me who regularly check Category:Items to be merged for templates or categories and re-tag them correctly if found.
As similar system is in use on Template:Broken ref which sorts in categories like Category:Pages with missing references list, where the result can be seen by way of example.
Note that the use of the straightforward "Items to be merged" category is not a loss compared to using {{
DMC}}, since that category is not sorted by date and the incorrectly tagged pages will be visited soon by editors who will surely recognize an invalid date format. If some editors would still consider this problematic then a fork of DMC can be created to convey the |(ω){{PAGENAME}}
sorting parameter.
Debresser (
talk)
09:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I added a {{
merge to}} to the article
Egr vs scr as part of my proposal that it be merged into the
Emissions section of the article
diesel engine. I specified the destination and discussion as follows: {{Merge to|Diesel engine#Emissions|discuss=Talk:Diesel engine#Merger proposal: article Egr vs scr into section Emissions|date=January 2013}}
. However, on the resulting tag, the destination link appears as Diesel engine#Emissions but links to
diesel engine, when it should link to the correct section of the article (like the Discuss link does). -
Ian01 (
talk)
07:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
[[:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME:target#section}}|target#section]]
Using the mergeto template, is it possible to suggest a merge to a specific section of an article? I've noticed that {{mergeto|Calculus#Principles}} creates a link to [[Calculus]] instead of creating a link to [[Calculus#Principles]]. Jarble ( talk) 21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
section=
, but that parameter had already been taken on this template.
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
"Using the mergeto template, is it possible to suggest a merge to a specific section of an article?
" – All of this article-space template-tweaking in an attempt to communicate the entire content of one's drive-by merge proposal is just further contributing to our merging backlogs. This should not be a substitute for engaging in substantive discussions on the talk page. Yes, it is possible to suggest a merge to a specific section of an article. Make that suggestion on the talk page, please.
Wbm1058 (
talk)
14:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
By the way, Template:Duplication is a template-fork of Template:Merge. The original intent was just to flag obvious content-forks (e.g. biographies of the same person) for priority merging. The mission creep to WP:summary style section-merging has spun the merging backlog out of control. Wbm1058 ( talk) 15:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This template is used at Dandakaranya Development Authority but it has (Discuss) as a red link. Surely red links should not appear in this kind of template. Is anyone going to do anything about this. If not then please remove it. I give you seven days. Jodosma (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
{{ Merge sections}} may be modified to avoid duplicating {{ Merge}}, provided it's backwards compatible -- the section=y part cannot be lost; also it used to support small=y, which seems broken. Fgnievinski ( talk) 16:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Would anyone have any objection to having a bot remove merge templates on pages where there is a merge template placed on a page and no one opens up a discussion on why they placed the tag? I know that we are allowed to remove templates if there is no discussion, but there is currently no thing on this page that allows for people to remove the templates if both pages are tagged and there is no discussion, but I don't want to amend it on this page unless there is consensus to do so. I also have left a note on the bot request page to have someone do that, just so people are aware. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 22:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
We have an ongoing problem where the default use of these templates gives a link to a merge discussion that addresses a Talk: page, but not a section within that Talk: page. (Thankfully they do now at least point to the same page.)
I suggest that {{ Merge to}} should use the following to default its discuss parameter:
[[{{{discuss|Talk: {{{1}}}#Merge of {{PAGENAME}}}}]]
Similarly for {{ Merge from}}, but transposed appropriately. If multiple merge targets are used, dropping the defaulting and relying on the editor setting it manually would be reasonable. Such cases are rare. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
PROBLEM...
So 1) Fix the template section linking, 2) fix the help making such mandatory, 3) install error messaging in the template (After an interval when a hidden category lists those with invalid section links... cleaned up, then add the errors) Best regards! // Fra nkB 16:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Merge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "suggested" to "proposed" — Music1201 talk 03:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
|target=
, not for |1=
, |2=
, .. |20=
. The current implementation using {{
Pagelist}} assumes that all 20 pages are in the same namespace as the original, and if we're deviating from that, allowing any namespaces, that would be a bigger change. Is there consensus for that? —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
22:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)|nspace=
from this template to {{
Pagelist}} to make the 20 links change namespace together (which may be valid, since it's unlikely a request will come along asking to merge a page with a Wikipedia-namespace page and a Portal page, for example). Do you see a simpler solution? Or do you think module pagelist could be changed to be namespace-sensitive? —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
06:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)|nspace=all
as a special case. The change is queued up at
Module:Pagelist/sandbox and
Template:Merge/sandbox. Although I'm on semiwikibreak, I'll sync this if there are no complaints. —
Andy W. (
talk ·
ctb)
17:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I just proposed merging Wikipedian of the Year and Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year using these templates, but the links in the template don't seem to work right - from the main namespace, the link shows up in the text of the template OK, but the link just links back to the mainspace article. From the other, I can't seem to point it towards mainspace - it assumes that the destination article is in Wikipedia: namespace. Fortunately, the discussion links seem to work OK. Any chance this behaviour could be fixed so that cross-namespace mergers are supported, please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 15:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
2=Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year
.
Debresser (
talk)
19:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
1=Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year
. By the way, next time it would really help if you would inform us at what article the problem occurs.
Debresser (
talk)
11:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Could I please ask someone who can edit the template, to remove the words "and may be outdated" from the template please? Having those words present is a disclaimer, which is redundant per WP:NDA to the general disclaimers at the bottom of every page. It is not our job to indicate to a user that the content may be outdated, it's their responsibility to research that for themselves. Dane| Geld 18:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, while the merging takes place, it is recommended that you place the {{merging | target=Target article name}} template on the page that you will merge from (the source page). In this way, confusion will be avoided, as others will know that the source page is outdated, and that all further contributions should be included in the target page.How will others "know" that the source page is outdated, if you tell them that it "may be outdated"? That's not a way to avoid confusion. Merging shouldn't be a process that drags out for months, but unfortunately Template:Merging might encourage that. It's harder to merge a moving target. Yes, further contributions should be included in the target page, but maybe it would be better to use {{ in use}} to discourage such "further contributions" until after the merge is completed. – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)