Template talk:Merge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Merge is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

[edit] Heading section

The high-risk template protection has only been applied to Merge , Mergeto, and Mergefrom not the other merge templates.
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2
  3. Voting archive
  4. "Mergewith" (superseded) discussion archive
  5. Template_talk:Merge/Archive3-to-Jan2007

This talk page is for the discussion of the following pages:

Please be clear in your comments which template you are referring to.


Contents

[edit] Template for deletion

I honestly don't understand why the {{merge}} template exists. It could easily be superseded by {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}}, both of which direct merge discussions to a specific talk page, easing the process and allowing consensus to be reached much faster. This template could be changed to guide users to use one or the other. I was just about to place {{tfd|merge}} onto this page, but it's protected. If anyone with more power than me agrees, could you please comment here or finish what I can't? Thankyou :) Jack · talk · 13:46, Sunday, 25 February 2007

To use {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} is to say that article A should be merged into B (as opposed to merging B into A), i.e. it gives the two articles different "status", which is not always what we want to do. Brian Jason Drake 03:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Further to my previous comment , see #Reverse merger proposals above. Brian Jason Drake 03:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It's far simpler than that... it's a tool some are comfortable with, and who are you to steal a tool from a person's toolbox, costing them time and effort to learn something new, when the outcome is identical. Have the stuff proposed at TFD shouldn't be as it's impolite to ask others such things, and it's hardly an imposition on the systems memory to keep an template around that someone (anyone) finds useful. The biggest problem with most tool templates is that they aren't well documented and easy for laypeople to understand those which are documented. That's what WP:TSP is aimed at fixing. Best regards // FrankB 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Special characters

Not sure where the appropriate place to put this is, but I found the following line in Mass-energy equivalence, which obviously doesn't render very well:

{{Merge|E%3Dmc%C2%B2|date=February 2007|Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2#Merge_with_Mass-energy_equivalence}}

Is this correct usage of this template?

Brian Jason Drake 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • "E%3Dmc%C2%B2" is because the Help:Magic words used are full url friendly vice people friendly. See the magic word forms with the double 'EE' suffixes. It is however, no problem, save for the strangeness to look at as the links work. Looks like a consensus exists to merge those two pages now, if someone has time and is into physics or science. Best regards // FrankB 20:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Huh (didn't understand a word of that, except for the last sentence)? Brian Jason Drake 08:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sort adjustment

Please remove the {{PAGENAME}} variable from the categories as we now have the {{DEFAULTSORT}} to take care of it on article pages. I'd also like to request that {{DEFAULTSORT:Merge To}} be added in the noinclude section of the template as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, defaultsort sets a default sort key and is appropriate for articles like Paul Cohen (mathematician), which is often alphabetized under C. This is perfect for homogeneous categories like Category:Mathematicians. But in heterogeneous maintenance categories like these, it is the actual ASCII name of the page that is of interest; I wouldn't expect to have the category sorted by last name because not all articles are about people. So I would expect Paul Cohen's article to be sorted under P.
So, if anything, I would like to see the opposite: we should explicitly override defaultsort for maintenance categories to make it easier to find pages in the list. I believe that this is currently what the PAGENAME variables are doing. CMummert · talk 20:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}. I'm removing this for now; if it becomes clear that there is consensus to change the template, please add another one and I will be glad to make the changes. CMummert · talk 18:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One documentation for all of these templates

I think there should be a centralized doc at Template:Merge/doc that covers all usage. It's inefficient to have to duplicate every edit across the different /docs. If this is a good idea, please edit the templates to transclude {{Merge/doc}} instead of {{/doc}}. I'll add sample usage for {{merge-multiple}}, {{mergesection}} etc. as well. –Pomte 15:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editprotected edit needed

{{editprotected}}

  • I concurred with above back in January when I changed and fixed up the usage... just got back around now to implement such when I tripped over it again.
  • Hence, please change all three See also Templates: merge , mergeto, and mergefrom templates with the explicit inclusion of the combined usage page now in {{merge/doc}} so that the line in each of the three:

    {{/doc}} reads instead: {{merge/doc}}
  • Note that per my changes,
mergeto/doc  and mergefrom/doc are currently redirect templates and so all is working okay and there is no hurry.
  • If there is an easy way to combine talk page and or the /doc page histories, it may not be a bad idea to XFD the two orphaned /doc pages. The whatlinkshere for the templates themselves will serve to show where each is applied. Best regards // FrankB 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I updated the templates. If there is interest, I should be able to merge the histories and delete the old doc pages, but I don't see why they can't stay as they are. CMummert · talk 12:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The template image should be changed to Image:Merge Arrow.svg, a vector version that scales better. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There's been some discussion regarding this at Template talk:Merge/Archive3-to-Jan2007#svg images. Just FYI. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly how long do we intend to support IE6? It's an obsolete and dangerous browser. At this point, I think it's reasonable to tell IE6 users to either: (1) upgrade to IE7, (2) use Firefox instead, (3) use the monobook workaround for PNG transparency, or (4) put up with the blue background. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
1. I'm still waiting for someone to cite a single advantage to using the SVG icon in this template. Forget about not affecting IE6 users. Just tell me what the rest of us stand to gain.
If you actually bother to look, you'll see that the scaled 50px version looks worse than the native raster version does (particularly where the arrows intersect).
2. The SVGs for the other merger icons are highly inaccurate reproductions that don't match the originals or Image:Merge Arrow.svg. —David Levy 13:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you know anyone who still uses any version of Internet Explorer? I certainly don't. — CharlotteWebb 07:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
85% of the internet? We're doing this for everyone, not just each other. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm using IE6 at the moment (not through choice!); I don't have the rights to install new software on the computer I'm on, and IE6 is the only browser available. I suspect many other people are in a similar situation. --ais523 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, that describes my situation as well. I use Firefox at home, but I'm forced to use IE6 at school. My sister is forced to use it at work. —David Levy 13:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Since there doesn't seem to be clear consensus, I'm going to remove the editprotected tag. By the way, it was mistakenly substituted; that template should not be substituted. CMummert · talk 00:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

There is a problem with {{mergeto}}. When the user places this template message in a page (A) to the merge-target page (B), but the merge-target page (B) is moved to a better article name (C), the merge-target talk page (B) doesn´t moves to the C page, nor appear a message in the C talk page . --Altermike 16:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a problem. As has been discussed at length on your talk page, you accidentally capitalized a word, created a merge debate at Talk:Vehicle Engineering (with a capital 'E') and then presumably only checked Talk:Vehicle engineering (with a small 'e') before making the merge, hence why you erroneously thought that "the comments [against a merge] appeared after the merging".
{{mergeto}} functions just fine as long as you are aware of the case-sensitivity of pages. --DeLarge 17:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge templates don't work across namespaces

I'm suggesting a merge from an article in the main namespace to one in the Wikipedia namespace using mergefrom, and it inserts the Wikipedia: prefix before the name of the main namespace article, thereby making it a nonexistent link. Don't have time to figure out how to fix. (For current example (as of this date & time), see Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds/Templates.) Elf | Talk 04:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The template shouldn't assume that merging is always between one namespace, and users may not expect it to fill in the namespace for them. In the case of {{Mergefrom}}, [[:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] can be changed to [[:{{{1}}}]]. But this will ruin other current uses, so I'll subst your particular merge proposal to make it work in the meantime. –Pomte 04:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request - addition of interwiki link

Could someone add an interwiki link to the Irish version of this template at ga:Teimpléad:DéanCumascLe? --Kwekubo 11:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Strike that - just noticed the links are transcluded from Template:Merge/doc. --Kwekubo 11:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please link Template:Mergeto with es:Plantilla:Fusionar en. --Pasajero 11:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Whenever you want to add interwikis you should see if the docs are transcluded, because if they are then no admin intervention is needed. In this case, the interwiki needed to go in [[1]]. I put it in. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extra 'E' in talk: {{{PAGENAMEE}}}?

I'm trying to get a better understanding of templates by looking at the code of some of them. Please forgive me if I'm not understanding something, but is it the case that there are too many 'E's at the end of PAGENAME in this template? Right now it says:

   ...{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{NAMESPACE}}:}}{{{1}}}]]''. ([[{{{2|:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAMEE}}}}}|Discuss]])

It seems to me it would make more sense for it to be:

  ...{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{NAMESPACE}}:}}{{{1}}}]]''. ([[{{{2|:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}}}}|Discuss]])

Does this warrant an {{editprotected}} Thanks! Momazona 02:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

PAGENAMEE is documented at Help:Magic words. It is just a URL encoded version of PAGENAME. I can't see why it's needed; PAGENAME should work fine in internal links. But PAGENAMEE works too. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The SVG

I have changed to change Template:Mergefrom-multiple to use Image:Mergefrom.svg instead of Image:Mergefrom.gif. Here are my reasons for doing so:

  1. It would encourage use of SVG or at least PNG on the web, either of which are much more desirable than GIF.
  2. The only advantage to using the GIF version is support for the obsolete IE6, and IE6 is dying out off the web. See [2] and [3].
  3. The remaining IE6 users would be encouraged to upgrade to IE7 or Firefox, decreasing our need to deal with IE6's many rendering bugs.
  4. No one has complained that their ability to use Wikipedia would be impeded by switched to the SVG copy.

—Remember the dot (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted. Here are my reasons for doing so:
  1. GIF is now a 100% free format worldwide, so there no longer is any reason to discourage its use.
  2. No, IE6 compatibility isn't the only advantage to using the GIF version. In case you didn't notice, the SVG is an inaccurate (and inferior) rendition of the icon. We don't have a matching set of SVGs, and the one accurate SVG icon of the bunch is rendered by MediaWiki with significantly inferior quality.
  3. It isn't our job to dictate what browsers people use, let alone by deliberately breaking things for absolutely no benefit to the rest of us. We shouldn't allow such concerns to hold us back from making improvements, but this change isn't an improvement. It accomplishes nothing other than making the site worse. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that many users would even realize that their use of a particular browser was causing the problem, so they wouldn't switch because of it. They'd simply have a broken icon.
  4. Your last claim is false. If you read through the past discussions (in which there has never been consensus for the SVGs' use), you'll see that I work with visually impaired people who depend on these icons to identify the tags with greater ease. Your change makes the image more difficult to recognize. —David Levy 19:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. PNG is usually superior to GIF in compression and quality. We use PNGs whenever possible and discourage the use of GIFs. See Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload.
  2. I looked but could not see any difference between the GIF copy and the SVG copy. What difference are you referring to?
  3. Having only one copy of an image to work with is significantly simpler and easier than maintaining both a vector and a raster copy. If someone wanted to adapt or modify the image, it would be faster and easier to get at the copy they need if we only worried about the SVG.
  4. Why can't the people you worked with upgrade their browser? Doing so is free and simple, and IE6 is dying out anyway.
—Remember the dot (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Firstly, that page was written when the GIF format still had patent issues. It really should be updated, but this isn't urgent; we can employ common sense instead of following the rules purely for the sake of following the rules. Secondly, in the absence of alpha transparency and more than 256 colors, there is absolutely no quality difference between the GIF and PNG formats. In this case, the use of an SVG encourages the bad practice of using 24-bit PNGs for 8-bit applications. Thirdly, when dealing with images this small, any difference in file size between a GIF and a PNG is negligible.
  2. I designed the icons to have interlocking points. Image:Merge-arrow.svg and Image:Mergefrom.svg have non-interlocking points, and all three of the elements (the rectangle, the triangle and the diamond) have different proportions. (The creator told me that she would correct these disparities, but she never did.) Image:Merge-arrows.svg is a reasonably accurate reproduction of the original GIF, but MediaWiki doesn't scale it to this size very well.
  3. If you look at the description page for any of these graphics (as someone who wishes to adapt or modify an image certainly should), you'll see that all of the GIFs and SVGs are prominently displayed/linked (along with an explanation of why both formats exist). No one should have any difficulty finding the version that he/she desires.
  4. I do make sure that these people (who are elderly, incidentally) switch over to Firefox. I'm citing them as examples of the individuals whose ability to use Wikipedia is affected by the icons' appearance (many of whom don't have someone like me to help them). —David Levy 20:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed Image:Mergefrom.svg to be pretty close to Image:Mergefrom.gif. Even elderly people receive the IE7 update automatically, and installation is straightforward. But even with an opaque background, the symbol would still be readable. Since it doesn't severely impact IE6 users' ability to use Wikipedia and upgrading is quite easy, I don't think it's necessary to cater to those using obsolete software. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. I have IE6 installed on my system (and use it for occasional compatibility testing), and there has been no automatic update. In fact, every public computer that I've used (at college and in libraries) is running IE6 (with no alternative options available).
  2. Software installation seems straightforward to you and me, but my grandmother (and many people her age) can't do it. Heck, even my parents can't do it.
  3. I specifically tested to see what difference the white background made, and almost all of these elderly people (with and without major visual impairments) told me that it made the icon more difficult to recognize.
  4. No, we shouldn't cater to users of "obsolete" software, nor should we go out of our way to make things worse for them. The GIF renders correctly in all graphical browsers, so the rest of us lose nothing by retaining it.
  5. Thanks very much for updating the SVG (which certainly has legitimate applications). Could you please update Image:Merge-arrows.svg and Image:Merge-arrow.svg to match? I'd sincerely appreciate it. —David Levy 00:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have automatic updates enabled, then you should have had a dialog pop up that said a new version of Internet Explorer is ready to install. If you do not have automatic updates enabled, then you are leaving your computer quite vulnerable as security holes in Windows are discovered.
Yes, the GIF is not going to look quite as good on IE6 because it will be on a white background. But IE6 is obsolete. If users find their inability to view web pages without quirks then they can just upgrade. We might as well leave the GIF copy behind and encourage use of SVG; there's no need to worry about the IE6 users. Installation of IE7 truly is point-and-click. Anyone, most likely even your parents and grandparents, could do it. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. I don't have automatic updates enabled. I manually install security updates. (Many people install no updates, unfortunately.)
  2. Again, I wouldn't argue that we should withhold improvements for the sake of accommodating IE6 users (and users of the other browsers for whom the SVGs pose problems). This isn't an improvement. Switching to the SVG for this purpose provides no significant advantage to anyone.
  3. My parents and grandmother can barely manage to access websites and send e-mail (and I frequently have to assist them with the minor issues that arise). Performing a software update seems trivially easy to you and me, but many people simply aren't good with computers.
  4. Thank you for updating Image:Merge-arrow.svg. If you could also update Image:Merge-arrows.svg (which is isn't quite as good as your versions), that would be great. —David Levy 10:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do you say this is an '8 bit application'? Using alpha transparency along those diagonal lines renders better because it can be used on backgrounds of different colors without having to anticipate the background color and generate a different GIF. Also, for my money, the SVGs actually do look better. I totally buy the case for hand-optimized pixel artwork at these kinds of sizes, but in the GIFs the horizontal and vertical lines are not pixel-aligned, and so they do not look very crisp. This suggests that they were not prepared specifically for this resolution. The SVG does have such crisp lines, impressively. As for accessibility, I agree we need to be sensitive to these kinds of issues, but transparent PNGs from SVGs are already in wide use on the site, and the worst common rendering problem is that they have a white matte instead of transparency. Given the color of the merge templates this is a pretty minor problem. — brighterorange (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the difference that you describe, and I assure you that I created the icons at this precise resolution. They can, of course, be adjusted to precisely match the SVGs' appearance (when displayed with the standard merger template background color) to the pixel. —David Levy 00:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, obviously they can be fixed, but my comment still applies. I'm surprised you don't see the difference (here's the GIF):
The gif clearly shows pink around the red shaft of the arrow, making this horizontal line look blurry. The SVG shows crisp horizontal and vertical lines even at small resolutions:
(Of course I can't scale up the pixel rendering like with the GIF, so you'll have to pull out the screen magnifier if you want to see it close up.) — brighterorange (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't understand what you were referring to. That's a design element, not an unintentional artifact. If you zoom in on the scaled SVG, you'll clearly see that the arrow's trunk contains the image's only "crisp" edges (due to the anti-aliasing present throughout the remainder). I deliberately softened them to match the rest of the icon. I personally prefer this style, but it's entirely optional; it doesn't stem from a limitation of the GIF format, so the GIFs don't have to look like that. We have no control, conversely, over how MediaWiki scales the SVGs. —David Levy 17:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
But only some of the other vertical lines (i.e., not the back edge of the arrow's stem)? Weird. Well, okay, maybe it is deliberate but I think the SVGs look better. — brighterorange (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I did a great deal of experimenting and felt that this configuration looked the best. My opinion, of course, is far from sacrosanct. —David Levy 20:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Internet Explorer sucks, 7 slightly less than 6. I much prefer png to gif images (even better, svg, if it works for the audience).

But I have to call B.S. on Remember's statement that "there's no need to worry about the IE6 users." His own cited links ([4] and [5]) show that IE6 is the single most popular browser at W3Schools.com and Webreference.com's web sites. Claims that "IE6 is dying out off the web", "remaining IE6 users would be encouraged to upgrade", and "upgrading is quite easy" are not only irrelevant strawman arguments for abandoning what works in most people's web browsers, they are an arrogant slap in the face for the single largest audience group at two technically-oriented web sites, and possibly a much larger group of users on the Web in general.

I say make it continue to look right for everybody. I like better technology too, but we should only use it where it works without degrading the experience for literally millions of readers of Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2007-07-03 17:19 Z

By the way, a couple of much wider-ranging sources confirm that IE 6 is still (unfortunately) the most common browser by far:
  • TheCounter.com's top three browsers in June 2007, from 66,557,181 visits:[6]
    1. IE6 54%
    2. IE7 16%
    3. Firefox 12%
  • W3counter.com, top three in last 25,000 page views in June 2007, from 4,863 sites:[7]
    1. IE6 49.12%
    2. IE7 17.08%
    3. Firefox 2.0 14.95%
 —Michael Z. 2007-07-03 18:19 Z
BTW, is there a reason that wikipedia doesn't use "pngfix.js" that makes the alpha channel work in IE5 and 6? It doesn't work in every case, but it does work for this one. — brighterorange (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It might be because it's just better for everyone if users just upgrade their browsers. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, that would be better, but we don't live in a perfect world. We work for our readers (not the reverse), and we don't get to decide what browsers they use. —David Levy 20:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


What is pngfix.js? We could certainly add it to Common.js if it fixed something. — Omegatron 02:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's something along the lines of this, but the script should only be applied if the user is browsing with IE <= 6. If you know how to implement this on Wikipedia, that would be awesome. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'll tell you what. I ought to be able to tweak the script myself and provide you with the tweaked copy. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Be patient. It'll take me a day or two. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Discuss" link to a section

Many times people say "where is this merge being discussed!!?" I propose that the "Discuss" link point to a specific section of the talk page, based on the template parameter? Like "#Merge of x". And if there's already a discussion section or if there's more than one thing being discussed at once, someone can just add an anchor tag within that section to attract the clicks. — Omegatron 02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image update

{{editprotected}}

Please remove

<noinclude><!--PNG images containing transparencies do not display properly for some users. Please consider this fact before replacing the already tiny GIF file.--></noinclude>

from this template and change [[Image:Merge-arrows.gif|left]] to [[Image:Merge-arrows.svg|left]]. Now that a workaround has been implemented for PNG transparency in Internet Explorer 5.5 and 6, there is no reason to continue to use the less scalable GIF copy. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the outdated message and will switch to the SVG when it's been updated to match the other merger template icons (as the GIF already does). —David Levy 05:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad display

This template is displaying badly on University of Hull (as an be seen by previewing the article with just the template removed) but I don't know how to fix it. Timrollpickering 22:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will someone please fix the darn SVG problem

Someone apparently decided to change the general format of all the organization templates, that's fine, except that they aren't working. Places ALL OVER that are using SVG graphics just aren't showing the image, the images still exist, but something isn't working right, and this is far far beyond the scope of what I'm able to fix. Really, this needs to be dealt with. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a known image issue on the Wikimedia sites. The timing apparently is an unfortunate coincidence. —David Levy 05:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to break the subject, but the "updated" template looks awful. Please revert to the stable version. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mergefrom: "page or section"

The ending of the Mergefrom template, "this page or section", is a bit lame. Can someone add a parameter to distinguish between merging into "this section" from merging into"this article." Of course, not everyone will use the parameter, but at least it will be there for those who do use it. If there is consensus, please add an {{editprotected}} tag at the top of this section. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 18:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "merged" link leads to redirect

Would an admin mind fixing the "merged" link in these templates? On May 30, Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages was moved to Help:Merging and moving pages. This is a well-used/important template and I don't think links in it should lead to redirects. It probably creates a little extra server strain and we should point people to where the page actually is. Jason McHuff 07:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

Y Done.—Random832 15:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from multiple does template show a message on each proposed page?

In the Merge page guidelines it suggests using the {{mergefrom-multiple}} template and placing it on the destination page (rather than a single {{mergeto}} template on each page), however, when I did this on Meiko Scientific there is now no notice on the proposed merge pages Meiko Computing Surface and MeikOS. Unless I am missing something shouldn't this template do that automatically? If not what needs to go on those pages, wouldn't {{mergeto}} cause category sorting problems if both templates were used?Awotter (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Each article must be tagged individually. The {{mergefrom-multiple}} template is a substitute for two transclusions of the {{mergefrom}} template on the same page, not for the two separate transclusions of the {{mergeto}} template. I've tagged the articles for you. —David Levy 21:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!Awotter (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor change requested ("merged" Wiki link)

{{editprotected}} I don't mean to nitpick, but Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages redirects to Help:Merging and moving pages.

In other words, change
[[Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages|merged]]
to
[[Help:Merging and moving pages|merged]]

This should changed on the following templates:
Template:Mergeto
Template:Mergefrom
Template:Mergefrom-multiple
Template:Mergesection
Template:Mergesections
Template:Merging
Template:Mergeto-multiple
Template:Mergetomultiple-with

Thanks. lightsup55 ( T | C ) 02:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

N Not done - Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken Harryboyles 05:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted comments on the other "Merge" template talk pages?

I tried to post the same comment on Template talk:Mergeto that appears on this talk page, but it seems to have disappeared somehow. Maybe it has something to do with the fact the Template talk:Mergeto page redirects here, so when I clicked the "new section" link from the "View Source" tab on Template:Mergeto (which has the "can be edited only by administrators" blah blah blah... box) on Template talk:Mergeto, it didn't actually get posted. Is this a bug or what?

Thanks. lightsup55 ( T | C ) 02:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That talk page redirects here (see its first #REDIRECT line), as all discussion about merge templates are better organized in one location. –Pomte 02:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand that, but shouldn't the comment automatically get posted into the article/page that it is redirected to? Or has this never been a feature of the software that is used on Wikipedia? lightsup55 ( T | C ) 02:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You edited Template talk:Mergeto directly, and the most intuitive result should be that changes get made to Template talk:Mergeto, not Template talk:Merge (the 2 pages have nothing to do with each other directly; one simply has code telling it to redirect to the other). If all edits to Template talk:Mergeto get moved to this page automatically, there would be no way to edit Template talk:Mergeto directly (in case the redirect needs to be changed, for example). I'm guessing you got there by the small (Redirected from Template talk:Mergeto) at the top of the page, which isn't usually done except to edit that page. –Pomte 05:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I actually got there from the "view source" tab (which normally appears as "edit this page" when a page is not edit protected) on Template:Mergeto.
On the "view source" tab, it said:

This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators.
The link in the text above that I have bolded is the link I clicked on when I tried to edit the template at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Mergeto&action=edit which only showed the source and that table above I have shown.

[edit] Try putting the page protection template at the top.

{{editprotected}} THE PAGE PROTECTION TEMPLATE SHOULD BE AT THE TOP of the "merge" template, never at the bottom. Or try having a small version of that protection template instead. You can find it in the Template messages/Maintenance section. This is for the "merge" template. Your "guide" is in this page. iaNLOPEZ1115 TaLKBaCK Vandalize it UBX 11:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved to the top. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "date" parameter

Should the date be the date the merge was proposed, or the date the template is being added (in cases where someone suggested a merge but didn't add the template, or added the template to one article but not the other)? I went with the latter at Unageing and Ageless#Media and fiction. --DocumentN (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rework

The template {{merging}} should simply say that the page in question is being merged with another. That the one in question is being merged into another article should be an option, but there is no template for the other case where the article in question is the one the other is being merged into (i.e. it is the destination). I think it should be kept as a single template, with the option of adding something to identify which situation applies to a given article. Richard001 (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take a stab at this since there seem to be no objections. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I've made the change and added some documentation. I also fixed the common merge documentation at Wikipedia:Template messages/Merging and splitting/List while I was at it. Please let me know if there are any issues. Adam McCormick (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging a merge template into a merge template

I suggest mergeing {{Mergeto}} into {{merge}} as they are effectively the same template. Simply south (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Could someone add merge tags to {{Mergeto}} and {{Merge}} to show the suggested merger of one into the other? (probably with <noinclude></noinclude> things to not mess up any others). Simply south (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken regarding the existence of redundancy.
Template:Mergeto is used to suggest that a page's content be moved from the page on which it's placed to another page (with the former becoming a redirect to the latter). This is done in conjunction with Template:Mergefrom, which is placed on the page to which the person believes that the content should be moved.
Template:Merge does not indicate a suggested direction for the merger. It's placed on two or more pages when the person believes that they should be merged but doesn't know which page should be retained and which page(s) should be redirected.
If you still want to insert merger tags, I'll do so. —David Levy 19:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe they could be reworded to show thi. It is not always clear. Simply south (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The wording ("merged with" / "merged into") seems clear to me, and we have have an explanatory page, but you're welcome to suggest different wording. —David Levy 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I can see this is a slight misunderstanding, but couldn't we still do this? Why not just add an optional field to say 'to' of 'from', then just merge both into the 'parent' template? It might create problems for people used to using the more specific templates though, assuming they wouldn't be compatible via redirect. Richard001 (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken

The "Discuss" link in this template is broken. I would fix it, but it's protected. — NRen2k5(TALK), 23:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How/where is it broken? Can you link to an example? —David Levy 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
For example, the Embedded Application Binary Interface uses the "mergeto" template to suggest merging it into Application Binary Interface. I expected the "discuss" link generated by this template to create a link to Talk:Application binary interface. Alas, currently the "discuss" link on Embedded Application Binary Interface is a redlink, to the non-existent "Talk:Application_Binary_Interface". --68.0.124.33 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. (at least this specific case). Fixed by editing "Embedded Application Binary Interface" to suggest merging it into the "real" article name application binary interface -- rather than the redirect page "Application Binary Interface". Now the "discuss" link on "Embedded Application Binary Interface" sends me to the correct page ("Talk:Application binary interface"). Does that fix the problem that NRen2k5 noticed? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Merging -- "This page or section is"

{{editprotected}} Could you please replace the text "This page is" with "This page or section is", in Template:Merging (following the usage in Template:Merge). As an example for the need for it, please see this.

N Not done You can't merge a section into an article - that's called splitting :D. Seriously I can't think of a legitimate situation in which the disambiguation would be required. Happy‑melon 22:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Usage understood and fixed, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.254.165 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)