Help talk:Merging and moving pages/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Merge with previous version

I've thrown together a template for proposed merger with previous version of the same page (Template:Mergeprevious). Ignoring for the moment my pitiful graphic design skills, do others think this might be a useful addition to the family of merge templates? The idea came out of discussions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review and this or something like it will be necessary there—many featured articles seem to have deteriorated quite substantially since becoming featured, and for them merging with the orginaly featured version seems a good step forward. --jwandersTalk 12:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Should HUMAN IMPRINTING merge with imprintiing or thumbsucking or psychology?Elsiemobbs 04:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy suggestion

Recently, there was a problem with an editor who appeared to be on a mission to destroy articles though merging and deletion. Not every editor checks articles that they are interested in frequently. At that time I would only check those articles once a month or so. I would like to suggest that a policy be adopted that a merge template must be up for 2 months or so before the merge is done. I would like to see something similar with perhaps 4-6 months notice on article deletion. Is this the best place to discuss this?—Who123 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Template for "It has been proposed that this article be moved to ..."

I think there is the need for such a template, similar to the "proposed merge" template. Mainly to make readers aware etc. (same as with a merge proposition i guess), and to allow further discussion on the talk page to reach a consensus. -- Lee Carré 22:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging templates?

How does one propose a merge of two templates? Template:Infobox UK schools vs. Template:Infobox UKschool, for example. I have no knowledge of schools in the UK, so I don't even know which one is more useful for the purpose. --Geniac 18:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Please comment on my proposed new template for merges at Template talk:Merge#Single-template Proposal. Thank you. Timrem 21:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A contradiction?

I'm currently proposing a merger of List of Harvard University people and Notable non-graduate alumni of Harvard. Five days have elapsed with no one objecting (or even commenting for that matter), and according to one sentence in WP:MERGE, I may perform the merger ("After sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence (at least 5 days), you may perform the merger or request that someone else do so."). However, further down I see this:

"After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page and check back in a couple of weeks for a response. You may be able to invoke a response by contacting some of the major or most-recent contributors via their respective talk-pages. If there is clear agreement after two weeks that the articles should be merged (or no response after four weeks), proceed with the merger."

Which one is it? Five days, or four weeks? (Four weeks seems pretty long to me.) Many thanks. Gzkn 01:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I also recently noticed this. I believe the shorter time frame is more appropriate. Khatru2 23:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the page history, the 5-day time limit is older, added on 21 May 2006.[1] The paragraph about giving 2-4 weeks was added on 25 August 2006,[2] after what appears to be an advisory discussion on WP:HD. [3] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Based on that HD discussion, I am unsure where the four week time limit came from, other than from the user who added it. Every other time period for debate discussions here on Wikipedia range from 5 days (on WP:RM) to 14 days (on WP:PUI). So based on that HD discussion, this discussion, and similar ones on this talk page, it is probably more appropriate to change it to one or two weeks. It would be similar to what some admins do on AFD debates (myself included in the past): If there are no responses on a discussion for 7 days, it would be relisted again for another week. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

A quick 'thanks' to everyone involved in writing this page. The "How to merge pages" guide was very easy to follow! --Culix 07:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk Template

There used to be a reference to a template for use on talk pages for proposed mergers. It had a heading and instructions for voting and the like. It's not on this page anymore under the "how to propose a merge" instructions. I've seen some very sloppy merge proposals lately. Does anyone know where it went? 24.85.238.116 23:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wording of instructions for source/destination tags for merge-into

Is this part of the instructions the right way round?

If you know which page should be removed, use {{mergefrom|SOURCE PAGE}} on that page, and {{mergeto|DESTINATION PAGE}} on the page that will remain and will receive the contents of the source page.

To me, it seems the wrong way round. The source page is the article to be removed, and some fraction of its text will end up in the destination page. Therefore, shouldn't the tag on the source page contain the name of the destination page, and vice versa?

If so, the instruction should read:

If you know which page should be removed, use {{mergeto|DESTINATION PAGE}} on that page, and {{mergefrom|SOURCE PAGE}} on the page that will remain and will receive the contents of the source page.

I didn't want to go ahead and change it in case I've got the logic wrong. But what do you think? Macboff 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's right how it is (I've concluded this several times over the course of a couple of years). I agree it's very confusing, though. Not sure how to clarify. Lyrl Talk C 16:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I just ran into this, and furthermore didn't see this discussion (see the bottom of the talk page). Suggestion: Change the wording from
use {{mergeto|DESTINATION PAGE}} on that page, and {{mergefrom|SOURCE PAGE}} on the page that will remain
to
use {{mergeto|NAME_OF_DESTINATION_PAGE}} on that page (the source page), and {{mergefrom|NAME_OF_SOURCE_PAGE}} on the page that will remain
as it is, the variables look like constants that say "this is the source page" and "this is the destination page". Jeh 20:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I just proposed a merge (with tags from this page) and had a bot come and "fix" them (add dates for maintenance purposes). It is possible to add instructions for the dates on this page? So I don't feel like a complete newbie that a bot has to come and clean up after? Lyrl Talk C 16:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Article does not say whether/how to merge talk pages

The how-to guide is quite helpful, but it does not include guidance on how to handle talk pages when merging articles. Should the talk page (from the source article) be left as where it is, to be associated with the newly created redirect? Should significant discussion be moved (or copied?) to the target article's talk page. Even if no action is required, it would be useful to say that. Chimpex 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirects are necessary

On AfD, I see the !vote "merge and delete" a lot. We can't merge and delete articles; we have to merge and redirect articles if we are merging information. The authors of previous versions must be kept intact, as per the GFDL. We need to make that clear. — Deckiller 14:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we already mention that on the page. I think the next step is to inform those who do not understand the concept. — Deckiller 03:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"source" vs. "destination"

In the sentence

If you know which page should be removed, use ((mergeto|DESTINATION PAGE)) on that page, and ((mergefrom|SOURCE PAGE)) on the page that will remain and will receive the contents of the source page.

Isn't something backwards? Jeh 19:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Er... Uh, no. I get it. nm, I haven't had my coffee yet. Jeh 19:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Splitting this page

I propose splitting "Merging and moving" into Wikipedia:Merging pages & Wikipedia:Renaming a page. In fact, we already have Help:Moving a page. --Uncle Ed 21:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging unreferenced pages

I propose that we change the main page to mention that a merge proposal should only be made if an article has referenced sources. I have found while clearing the backlog of merge proposals that often we are caught in circular arguments with editors about which term is correct and everyone is citing their own personal knowledge as the support for their term. Alan.ca 19:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

OK... most editors voted MERGE... now what?

I don't see clear instructions on what to do after a merger vote. When is the vote over? Is there a tag to put at the top of the page announcing that the consensus is to MERGE and that action should be taken? I noticed this "ok-now what?" problem at the article Those We Don't Speak Of/The Village (film) (at least 5 unique votes to merge or delete and one opposition by the article's creator), and to a lesser extent at Skygazing/Amateur astronomy. Part of the problem seems to be the wrong tag being used... these are more specifically cases for deletion because they are not encyclopedic, "Those We Don't Speak Of" has notability problems since its about something that never existed in an unpopular movie, and "Skygazing" is basically a "how-to". At the end of this vote should I be bold and take the further decision to mark them for speedy deletion because there is nothing to merge? Halfblue 14:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If nobody answers here, you should ask again on WP:HD. --Teratornis 14:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
What's missing is the "close" of the merge discussion. Officially closing a discussion usually is accomplished by putting a "top" archival template at the top of the discussion and a "bottom" archival template at the bottom of the discussion. I checked Category:Archival_templates and did not see any such templates for merge discussions. You might want to create these templates. -- Jreferee 15:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)