Template:Template interwiki

Template:Merge

Template:Mergeto

Template:Mergefrom

Template:Mergesection

Template:Mergesections

Template:Merging

Archive 1

Archive 2

Voting archive

"Mergewith" (superseded) discussion archive

Please note that the wording and visual style of these templates were determined via formal votes.
This page has been split into:

• Wikipedia:Template messages/Splitting
• Wikipedia:Template messages/Merging

Huh? Unless substitution is performed — which isn't (and shouldn't be) done with this template — the only code that appears is {{merge|Other item}}. —Lifeisunfair 18:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"{{merge|Other item}}" appears in the wikitext, but it is expanded into the content of the template in articles, of course ("It has been suggested that this article..."). The HTML comment will not be visible on the page, but it will be extra bytes of comment code unnecessarily, and meaninglessly in that context, transmitted along with the web page's code. It's not a big deal, but since Wikipedia is one of the busiest sites on the Internet, we can be environmentally responsible by not pushing out extra bytes needlessly. I moved the HTML comment to the <noinclude> section of the template, so it will appear to editors of the template, but will not be included in Wikipedia articles. —Michael Z. 2005-11-29 20:56 Z

You're mistaken. Such comments are not transcluded; they do not appear in the HTML source of articles containing the template. —Lifeisunfair 21:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Wikimedia template mechanism strip comments during expansion? I did not know that, but it would make sense. Sorry to force a rebuild. —Michael Z. 2005-11-29 21:30 Z

"Does the Wikimedia template mechanism strip comments during expansion?"

Yes, the comments are automatically omitted. (See for yourself.)

"I did not know that, but it would make sense. Sorry to force a rebuild."

No problem. :) —Lifeisunfair 22:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this isn't template-specific; the MediaWiki software never includes such comments in the HTML code (irrespective of namespace). —Lifeisunfair 22:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i did this to allow for a large block of very similar mergers to be discussed together. Plugwash 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just created svg versions of the merge images. File:Mergeto.svg Feel free to switch to them. I would have done it myself, but the templates are protected. --Easyas12c 20:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, but...

1. Your versions contain alpha transparencies, which render improperly for most users. (Note the gray background.)

2. Your versions are simplified in appearance. (They lack the intersecting red and blue lines that ensure that neither arrow/diamond is in front of the other.)

3. While potentially useful in another context, your versions offer no apparent technical advantages for this application.

—David Levy 21:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Damn I always tend to forget how badly IE sucks, because I stopped caring about that a long time ago. If software is broken I don't see a reason for supporting its bugs, specially when they are only cosmetic. But I do understand Wikipedia in general may think otherwise.

2. This simplicity is a bad thing?

3. Better compatibility for different user specific themes and browser default stylings, and also posibility to choose the display size and even specifying it relatively against display device and screen resolution, without blurring the image.

--Easyas12c 19:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't like IE any more than you do, but we certainly shouldn't punish its users.

2. I'm not saying that the simplicity is bad, but I prefer the interlinking design to the superimposed design. I also prefer 100% opacity. Of course, I designed the icons, so I'm not exactly impartial.

3. Could you cite an example of such an implementation?

—David Levy 03:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. We should not make it unusable in IE, but if it just looks ugly, then it is a fair punishment (earned by using IE).

2. I did it that way just because it was easier to do it that way in svg. I created these along with three images for Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations (1, 2 and 3). I wanted them to look consistent with the merge symbols, but I wanted them to be SVG, so I could not use the current ones. Thats why I created the new ones.

3. Using Wikipedia with firefox is such implementation. First firefox has its default styling (different from IE). I can also use my own style sheet as my default Firefox style (with dark background for example). Media wiki does the rendering, so it can render the images to different sizes.

--Easyas12c 23:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the look of Easyas12c's arrows. Would re-creating the SVG files with solid white backgrounds be the solution? Out of curiosity, does PNG transparency work in the latest IE7 beta?

Anyone know why Wikipedia's SVG renderer retains transparency, if it isn't desirable? —Michael Z. 2006-01-17 03:09 Z

Would re-creating the SVG files with solid white backgrounds be the solution?

No, solid white backgrounds would be no better. The current icons have transparent backgrounds.

Out of curiosity, does PNG transparency work in the latest IE7 beta?

PNG transparency works in IE6, but only with 8-bit files. The current icons could be converted from GIFs to 8-bit PNGs, but the size difference would be negligible (and some other browsers—such as older versions of IE, Opera and Netscape Navigator—display 8-bit PNGs improperly).

I would assume that IE7 handles all PNG files correctly, but IE6 will remain commonly used for years to come.

Anyone know why Wikipedia's SVG renderer retains transparency, if it isn't desirable?

The alternative (assigning a background color) would cause the image to display improperly in all browsers (including those that can handle alpha transparencies). —David Levy 03:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is protected. It needs a sort key added to the category link, so

[[Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates]]

needs to change to

[[Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]

– Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC

Done. —David Levy 13:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please replace the existing GIF image with Image:Merge Arrow.svg? This should be identical in form to the previous image, but as a vector graphic, it's much more scalable and won't pixelate if we want to change the resolution. The page is protected so I can't edit it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 08:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not make a voting thing to merge like in V/AFD --FlareNUKE 00:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]