This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Merging page. |
|
![]() | Merge | |||
|
![]() | Wikipedia Help B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
| ||||
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
Is there any consensus on the best way to handle merging talk pages? After making the talk page of a long-merged article redirect to the new location,
[1] I've added the pre-merge talk page as
an archive with a decimal number. This is now searchable from an archive template, but won't show a hyperlink (positive integers only). If I had done this at the time of merging (instead of seven years later) I could have just moved the pre-merge talk page to Talk: <new article>/Archive <n + 1>
and incremented the arching counter to "n + 2". I used a generic {{
ombox}} to explain that the talk page had come from elsewhere because I don't see any kind of standard template for this. This all seems like the kind of thing a script could do, but after searching I don't think such a script exists.
Rjjiii (
talk) 20:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- The Destination (target) Talk-Page is tagged with (optional): {{merged-from|~source page~|date= }}'' –or– {{Copied|~source page~|date=}}
- The Source Talk-Page that has discussion content, should have the following template placed: {{merged-to|~destination page~|date= }}'' (without removing the old discussions, but replacing all other templates; including most project assessment templates (some projects want to keep these—they will correct if necessary); the exception is the archive index).
On 20:23, 9 January 2024, I made an edit with the rationale "this should not be emphasized as being optional, as a tag of merge is certainly necessary for example to know the reason of any discrepancies or other situations about the pages". But on 16:12, 10 January 2024, User:Klbrain made a revert, with the rationale, "Take it to talk if you want a policy change like this; the Edit summary should already provide the information this template includes, so this step is duplication of work".
I have to point out that an edit summary is provided sometimes with an edit, whose diff is among often many other diffs found in the page history. Therefore, certainly an edit summary of a merge is in no way a useful substitution of a prominent indefinite tag indicating there was a merge. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
the small proportion of readers who actually know to use talk pages will also be quite confident with page histories.Last time I spent a significant amount of time looking for the diff of a merge/move of a page from a link provided by an editor. If the merge or move template had been in the header of the talk page, it would have saved me a lot of work. Regardless, given that Wikipedia:Merging is only an information page, removing the wording "optional" doesn't make compulsory the guidance, only removes the emphasis on optional. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Last time I spent a significant amount of time looking for the diff of a merge/move of a page from [Wikipedia:Categorization of people#By place] provided by an editor.This is easily solved by doing a search of "merg" on the TP. Note: If an old merge hasn't been noted or attributed in a past edit summary, you should do so at that time and refer back to the actual merge date in the edit summary; that keeps things legal. Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 12:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
This section of the guideline is opaque, confusing, and badly written. It explicitly covers the closing requirements for Any user, including the user who first proposed the merge
and also states when an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merge proposal or the discussion
is required, but it requires reading between the lines for the intermediate case.
I restructured and clarified part of the text to be readable without changing the meaning. If there is consensus to make this change, I would like to reinstate the edit.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk) 22:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
closings of uncontroversial merge discussions by involved users are allowedand it restates the point before the uninvolved editor case:
In more unclear, controversial cases. If unanimity was required, the current text makes no sense.
The description for short text gives an example of a person who is not independently notable, but this seems like a poor example as you could have a notable topics where not much can be said about it, but it could easily be a subtopic of a broader article, and you could potentially write a lot of text about a non-notable person. Should this reason be split into two: Short text and Insufficient notability? --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 21:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I think a link to the Wikipedia:Merge what? essay may be useful, but the see also section is focused on guides, not related links. Thoughts on how this should be incorporated or if it should not be? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Afd-merge to states it will be replaced by a bot when the merge is complete. This is not covered in our instructions here, which state to handle all the tags manually. Can this exception be added with its relevant instructions? CMD ( talk) 10:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Merging page. |
|
![]() | Merge | |||
|
![]() | Wikipedia Help B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
| ||||
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
Is there any consensus on the best way to handle merging talk pages? After making the talk page of a long-merged article redirect to the new location,
[1] I've added the pre-merge talk page as
an archive with a decimal number. This is now searchable from an archive template, but won't show a hyperlink (positive integers only). If I had done this at the time of merging (instead of seven years later) I could have just moved the pre-merge talk page to Talk: <new article>/Archive <n + 1>
and incremented the arching counter to "n + 2". I used a generic {{
ombox}} to explain that the talk page had come from elsewhere because I don't see any kind of standard template for this. This all seems like the kind of thing a script could do, but after searching I don't think such a script exists.
Rjjiii (
talk) 20:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- The Destination (target) Talk-Page is tagged with (optional): {{merged-from|~source page~|date= }}'' –or– {{Copied|~source page~|date=}}
- The Source Talk-Page that has discussion content, should have the following template placed: {{merged-to|~destination page~|date= }}'' (without removing the old discussions, but replacing all other templates; including most project assessment templates (some projects want to keep these—they will correct if necessary); the exception is the archive index).
On 20:23, 9 January 2024, I made an edit with the rationale "this should not be emphasized as being optional, as a tag of merge is certainly necessary for example to know the reason of any discrepancies or other situations about the pages". But on 16:12, 10 January 2024, User:Klbrain made a revert, with the rationale, "Take it to talk if you want a policy change like this; the Edit summary should already provide the information this template includes, so this step is duplication of work".
I have to point out that an edit summary is provided sometimes with an edit, whose diff is among often many other diffs found in the page history. Therefore, certainly an edit summary of a merge is in no way a useful substitution of a prominent indefinite tag indicating there was a merge. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
the small proportion of readers who actually know to use talk pages will also be quite confident with page histories.Last time I spent a significant amount of time looking for the diff of a merge/move of a page from a link provided by an editor. If the merge or move template had been in the header of the talk page, it would have saved me a lot of work. Regardless, given that Wikipedia:Merging is only an information page, removing the wording "optional" doesn't make compulsory the guidance, only removes the emphasis on optional. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Last time I spent a significant amount of time looking for the diff of a merge/move of a page from [Wikipedia:Categorization of people#By place] provided by an editor.This is easily solved by doing a search of "merg" on the TP. Note: If an old merge hasn't been noted or attributed in a past edit summary, you should do so at that time and refer back to the actual merge date in the edit summary; that keeps things legal. Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 12:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
This section of the guideline is opaque, confusing, and badly written. It explicitly covers the closing requirements for Any user, including the user who first proposed the merge
and also states when an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merge proposal or the discussion
is required, but it requires reading between the lines for the intermediate case.
I restructured and clarified part of the text to be readable without changing the meaning. If there is consensus to make this change, I would like to reinstate the edit.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk) 22:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
closings of uncontroversial merge discussions by involved users are allowedand it restates the point before the uninvolved editor case:
In more unclear, controversial cases. If unanimity was required, the current text makes no sense.
The description for short text gives an example of a person who is not independently notable, but this seems like a poor example as you could have a notable topics where not much can be said about it, but it could easily be a subtopic of a broader article, and you could potentially write a lot of text about a non-notable person. Should this reason be split into two: Short text and Insufficient notability? --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 21:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I think a link to the Wikipedia:Merge what? essay may be useful, but the see also section is focused on guides, not related links. Thoughts on how this should be incorporated or if it should not be? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Afd-merge to states it will be replaced by a bot when the merge is complete. This is not covered in our instructions here, which state to handle all the tags manually. Can this exception be added with its relevant instructions? CMD ( talk) 10:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)