Content deleted Content added
→Proposing merges between namespaces: new section |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Template talk:Merge/Archive 6) (bot |
||
| (282 intermediate revisions by 75 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
{{central|Template talk: |
{{central|Template talk:Merge to|Template talk:Merge from|Template talk:Merging}} |
||
{{WikiProject Merge}} |
|||
{{permprot}} |
{{permprot}} |
||
{{tfdend|date=10 November 2010|result=do not merge|merge=Template:tfm}} |
{{tfdend|date=10 November 2010|result=do not merge|merge=Template:tfm}} |
||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
{{Archive box| |
|||
| algo = old(365d) |
|||
# [[Template_talk:Merge/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (August 2004 to July 2005) |
|||
| archive = Template talk:Merge/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
# [[Template_talk:Merge/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (June 2005 to October 2005) |
|||
| counter = 6 |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| maxarchivesize = 100K |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|||
# [[Template_talk:Merge/Archive 3|Archive 3]] (November 2005 to January 2007) |
|||
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
# [[Template_talk:Merge/Archive 4|Archive 4]] (February 2007 to February 2011) |
|||
| minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Archive box|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=1|units=year| |
|||
{{Center|'''Related archived pages:'''}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
}} |
}} |
||
This talk page is for the discussion of the following templates: |
This talk page is for the discussion of the following templates: |
||
* {{ |
* {{Tl|Merge}} |
||
* {{ |
* {{Tl|Merge to}} |
||
* {{ |
* {{Tl|Merge from}} |
||
* {{ |
* {{Tl|Merging}} |
||
Please be clear in your comments which template you are referring to. |
Please be clear in your comments which template you are referring to. |
||
| Line 21: | Line 29: | ||
Only some of these templates have been [[Wikipedia:High-risk templates|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. |
Only some of these templates have been [[Wikipedia:High-risk templates|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. |
||
== Template-protected edit request on 17 August 2022 == |
|||
== Change something in there? == |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
"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. [[User:StormContent|StormContent]] ([[User talk:StormContent|talk]]) 12:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:The current wording is grammatically correct; see [[English subjunctive]]. [[User:Ucucha|Ucucha]] ([[User talk:Ucucha|talk]]) 14:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{edit template-protected|Template:Merge from|answered=yes}} |
|||
== Discussion link == |
|||
:==Preposition to merge an item== |
|||
The template defaults to creating a link to the target page's talk page. (E.g. if I place on "Article A" <nowiki>{{mergeto|Article B}}</nowiki> 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? <font color="green">[[User:WikiDan61|WikiDan61]]</font><font color="green" size="5px"></font><sup>[[User talk:WikiDan61|ChatMe!]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiDan61|ReadMe!!]]</sub> 12:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: It appears that the article [[List of Lithuanian monarchs]] (Wikipedia item ID: Q111379094), along with its counterpart in French, should be merged with another set of articles (Wikipedia item ID: Q2639920) where currently an article in English does not exist. --[[User:SeriousThinker|SeriousThinker]] ([[User talk:SeriousThinker|talk]]) 13:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC) [[User:SeriousThinker|SeriousThinker]] ([[User talk:SeriousThinker|talk]]) 10:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:: [[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' this is the [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]] for discussing improvements to the [[Help:Template|template]] {{tlx|Merge}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned.<!-- Template:ETp --> [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 14:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ec}} There is a redirect, [[Grand Duke of Lithuania]], here in the English ''Wikipedia'', so there is no need to merge. If there is material from another-language ''Wikipedia'' with which to create the Grand Duke article here that might be a good way to go. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I. Ellsworth</span>]]''''' , [[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]] [[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r there</sup>]] <small>14:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
== Empty {{tl|Merge}} == |
|||
== Edit request 1 August 2023 == |
|||
I have [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Empty .7B.7BMerge.7D.7D templates|suggested]] to SmackBot's author that it should do something different when {{tl|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 [[:Category:Articles for merging with no partner|handful of people]]. In one [[Steve Howe Trio|case]] there has even been discussion added when the page has been specified there (where I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Howe_Trio&diff=prev&oldid=446104649 fixed the issue]), but otherwise I just deleted the template [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minhaj_International_University&diff=prev&oldid=446105653][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samanta_schweblin&diff=446111778&oldid=428830969][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qutalmish&diff=prev&oldid=446115562], and suggested SmackBot does the same, with a note to the adding editor (which I only did for the only recent merge [[User talk:Takabeg#Empty .7B.7BMerge_to.7D.7D at Qutalmish|suggestion]]). [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|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. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 16:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
The examples already included <code>OtherPage</code>, 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 <code>OtherPage</code> to the first references as well, and some other updates, including adding these wrong cases to [[Template:Merge/testcases|Testcases]]. [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|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. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>21:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|||
::{{Tl|Merge partner}} already does this, placing the articles in [[:Category:Articles for merging with no partner]]. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>21:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|||
:::Yes, I saw this issue because of that category (I linked to it above under [[:Category:Articles for merging with no partner|handful of people]]). What I saw as a problem was that {{tl|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 {{tl|Merge}}, {{tl|Merge to}}, {{tl|Merge from}}, and {{tl|Merge partner}} where I added something visible when {{tl|Merge partner}} does its thing and the end of the Mbox needed changing to include the possible output of {{tl|Merge partner}}. You can review the [[Template:Merge/testcases|testcases]]. [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 15:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:The two incidents I just covered from [[:Category:Articles for merging with no partner]] were added using [[Wikipedia:Twinkle|Twinkle]]. I have notified the developers on the [[Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Merge should always have a target|talk page]]. [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 15:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
== Template example is bad == |
|||
'''Description of suggested change:''' |
|||
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 {{tl|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'". [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 01:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
make the example something normal <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Michael21107|Michael21107]] ([[User talk:Michael21107#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Michael21107|contribs]]) 16:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign --> |
|||
: 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. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 09:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: Huh? You'll need to be much more specific about what exactly you want changed for this to get implemented. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 20:40, 1 August 2023 (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. [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 13:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::the example says <nowiki>''a page that has not been specified. If you are the editor who added this template, please specify.''</nowiki>...would be good to have it a normal example [[User:Michael21107|Michael H]] ([[User talk:Michael21107|talk]]) 19:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::: The example at the top is exactly what the template renders as when given no parameters. This is standard practice in template namespace and should not be changed without a good reason. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 00:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:apologies for not signing, i forget [[User:Michael21107|Michael H]] ([[User talk:Michael21107|talk]]) 19:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Template:Merge to]] display issue == |
|||
== Edit notice or something == |
|||
By default, {{tlx|Merge to}} produces output that reads "<nowiki>([[|Discuss]])</nowiki>" if you don't specify a {{para|discuss}} value; {{tlx|Merge from}} doesn't have this issue. I'm guessing that we should have them do the same thing. I would surmise that the best thing to do in both cases (though it might use different code in the two templates) is include a link to the talk page of the merge-to target, since that is the default location to discuss any merge. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 14:55, 13 December 2023 (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. [[User:Ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User_talk:Ktr101|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. [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|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. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk: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... [[User:Markhurd|Mark Hurd]] ([[User talk:Markhurd|talk]]) 08:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Okay...who wants to go ahead and help clear out everything with me? [[User:Ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User_talk:Ktr101|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. [[User talk:Harej|''hare'']] '''j''' 16:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Please, let's do that! [[User:Ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User_talk:Ktr101|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. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk: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? [[User:Ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User_talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 18:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::This has been <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mergers_for_discussion&oldid=289830366 proposed and rejected]</span> in the past. |
|||
::::In terms of implementation, a merger suggestion has more in common with a {{tl|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). —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 19:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Okay, do you think that we should open a formal discussion or something? [[User:Ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User_talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 22:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Regarding what, specifically? —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 22:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Regarding if there should be a mandatory "reason" parameter in merge templates. If I understand correctly. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk: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]]. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 02:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Okay, thanks. I'll get to doing that eventually. [[User:Ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User_talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 23:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Date display issue (in all these templates) == |
|||
== Proposing merges between namespaces == |
|||
This whole family of templates are unhelpfully displaying "<nowiki>Proposed since {{{date}}}.</nowiki>", when no {{para|date}} value has been specified. This entire item should probably just be suppressed in such a case (and a bot will date-fix it later anyway; there's no reason for it to be ugly and confusing in the short interim). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 14:59, 13 December 2023 (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.)<br>I tried to add a [[Template:Merge to|Merge to]] template to the incubated article, but it just shows a red link to [[On Your Radar (album)]]. Similarly, adding a [[Template:Merge from|Merge from]] template going the other way would also give a red link.<br>I presume that linking between namespaces causes difficulties. Adding "en:" before the article name hasn't helped. Any ideas? [[User:Bazonka|Bazonka]] ([[User talk:Bazonka|talk]]) 10:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 01:36, 14 December 2023
 | Merge | |||
| ||||
|
Related archived pages:
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This talk page is for the discussion of the following templates:
- {{Merge}}
- {{Merge to}}
- {{Merge from}}
- {{Merging}}
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.
Template-protected edit request on 17 August 2022[edit]
- ==Preposition to merge an item==
- It appears that the article List of Lithuanian monarchs (Wikipedia item ID: Q111379094), along with its counterpart in French, should be merged with another set of articles (Wikipedia item ID: Q2639920) where currently an article in English does not exist. --SeriousThinker (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC) SeriousThinker (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Merge}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) There is a redirect, Grand Duke of Lithuania, here in the English Wikipedia, so there is no need to merge. If there is material from another-language Wikipedia with which to create the Grand Duke article here that might be a good way to go. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 14:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Edit request 1 August 2023[edit]
Description of suggested change: make the example something normal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael21107 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Huh? You'll need to be much more specific about what exactly you want changed for this to get implemented. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- the example says ''a page that has not been specified. If you are the editor who added this template, please specify.''...would be good to have it a normal example Michael H (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- The example at the top is exactly what the template renders as when given no parameters. This is standard practice in template namespace and should not be changed without a good reason. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- the example says ''a page that has not been specified. If you are the editor who added this template, please specify.''...would be good to have it a normal example Michael H (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- apologies for not signing, i forget Michael H (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Template:Merge to display issue[edit]
By default, {{Merge to}} produces output that reads "([[|Discuss]])" if you don't specify a |discuss= value; {{Merge from}} doesn't have this issue. I'm guessing that we should have them do the same thing. I would surmise that the best thing to do in both cases (though it might use different code in the two templates) is include a link to the talk page of the merge-to target, since that is the default location to discuss any merge. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Date display issue (in all these templates)[edit]
This whole family of templates are unhelpfully displaying "Proposed since {{{date}}}.", when no |date= value has been specified. This entire item should probably just be suppressed in such a case (and a bot will date-fix it later anyway; there's no reason for it to be ugly and confusing in the short interim). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)