Template talk:R from merge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Unprintworthiness

There's been a small revert war going on at Wikipedia:Redirect. The question that is relevant here: should merged links be unprintworthy? It seems that many in Category:Redirects from merges are fairly reasonable alternatives.

--William Allen Simpson 14:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the category. Being the result of a merge has no connection at all to unprintworthiness. Kusma (討論) 15:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

What's the point of the warning? It only shows up if you click on "edit this page" and then click on "show preview" with the template still intact. Anybody who woul want to edit this page would probably remove the {{R from merge}} template before clicking preview, if preview is even used at all, so it serves as a meaningless warning. Can this be fixed? Hbdragon88 04:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That seems pretty silly to me. It is rarely seen by anybody other than the creator of the redirect. It needs fixing. Gene Nygaard 13:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the warning is in noinclude tags for no goo reason that I can see. DES (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
That was dione in this edit apparently by mistake. I am about to undo it. DES (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Now it works in prevuiew mode, but not when actualy saved, as far as i can see. ARRGH!! DES (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason it shows up like this is that it's embedded in a "<div class="toc">" tag. Which apparently makes it invisible unless the TOC is available. The only way to make it visible is using a __FORCETOC__ and only if it's at the beginning of the page (before the redirect tag). As you can see, this invalidates the redirect and makes the rest of the page information visible. However, placing the tag below the redirect keeps the information invisible. This is clearly an issue with the way a redirect preview is rendered. There really isn't much anyone can do execpt to change the way the code renders the page. I will try to submit a bugzilla request when I get a chance. When I do I'll post a link here. --Stux 17:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overstating the case re "only text remaining"

The template-page instructions says the only text remaining on the page should be:
#REDIRECT [[New title]] {{R from merge}}

That simply isn't true. There is at least one other thing that might reasonably appear there: category listings. Take, for example, a ship that has served in the navies of more than one country, with different names and designations in each. It ought to appear in each countries naval categories under the name used in that country. That's just one pretty obvious example. I'm not sure if such category listings still need to be on the same logical line as the redirect to work correctly, but especially if they do that ought to be mentioned.

Other maintenance templates might be another possibility as well. Gene Nygaard 13:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What you say makes sense. It is in fact mentioned here. However template tags (such as this one) will not be properly seen unless the page is edited (see my comment in the section above). --Stux 17:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template and the GFDL

In order to get the GFDL to work on wikipedia we have to treat individual articles as individual documents in terms of the GFDL. The from of merge this template advocates creates obvious problems with this. Geni 22:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by saying that this kind of merge violates GFDL. If merging separate articles violates GFDL, then all merges have been violating GFDL. BTW I don't think each article is separately licensed as GFDL, but rather the entirety of wikipedia is probably considered a single body of work. --Stux 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
1)history merges are fine with the GFDL 2)there is no meaningful way to treat wikipedia as a single document under the GFDL without produceing quite an interesting set of violations. See the various mailing list discussions.Geni 22:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Which mailing list discussions? Please be specific ... I (like most editors, I believe) have never consulted the mailing lists and so know nothing about where their archives exist. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Gets covered quite a bit in this thread.Geni 01:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there something about mailing list discussions having no relevance here? Gene Nygaard 18:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it to be a legitimate GFDL issue as long as editors say what page the merged content comes from. That way the original authors are still being acknowledged. ➳ Quin 15:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunetly the GFDL asks fr more than acknowledgement. Aditionaly it specifies how acknowledgement should be given.Geni 20:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything definitive which says that merge and redirect is a violation of GFDL. The mailing list thread above was ambiguous at best. On the other hand, preserving the redirect has been a core technique to comply with GFDL since the project began. I'm taking the warning back off until there is a much more definitive legal opinion that we can no longer use this technique and there has been the necessary remediation to correct all the historical uses of this technique. Rossami (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to provide an interpritation of the GFDL that allows for this type of merge and does not coflict with day to day wikipedia activities. I'm pretty sure there isn't one.Geni 20:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
We already know the GFDL is the worst license Wikipedia could possibly use, but it's what we use. The modifications section allows for merge and redirects depending upon your definition of many legal terms. Since nobody here is at worst a copyright lawyer with experience of GFDL cases or at best a Judge, I suggest we wait until this does become an actual issue, for example when someone who objects to such a merge decides to sue for plaigarism. Hiding Talk 23:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused about the warning

I'm just a simple editor merging a page and I'm confused. As instructed, I put this template on the old page, and see a warning that says Do not use this template or the form of merger it advocates. Should I not have merged the page? What form of merger should I have used? Who is this warning directed at? --Chetvorno 12:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconding A recommendation as to how to properly conduct a merger (link from here to detailed instructions) is necessary if we are to abandon the use of this template and the process it supports. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just used this template, and I don't understand the purpose of the warning either. From the looks of the discussion above, it seems that there is no consensus over whether this type of merger violates Wikipedia's GFDL license or not. Therefore, unless someone can explain clearly and conclusively why it is not acceptable, I will continue to use it. Terraxos 20:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I am also confused. I see this warning not to do something. But I can't figure out what exactly it's asking me not to do. More importantly, what is the right way to handle mergers? I wish it linked to a more detailed policy or guideline or at least an individual's rant. Perhaps a link to Help:Merging and moving pages or Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Merge and delete (the "project page" corresponding to this "talk page" does not exist today), or a link to the specific sub-section that deals with whatever it is that this warning is about. --70.130.44.41 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The correct method is to perform a history merge.Geni 20:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Your being the only person here advocating this change is not very reassuring, Geni. It is beginning to appear that you are speaking from a lone personal style standpoint rather than speaking from the position of a decided point of policy. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The GFDL is policy. At present there is no way to get the GFDL to work if we treat the whole of wikipedia as a single document. It sort of works if we treat each article and related history page as a single document but that means that a merge has to be a full history merge (it also creates issues with trying to split articles in that it is posible to argue that there is currently no legit way to do this useing the current version of mediawiki).Geni 23:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
But you are not the official interpreter of any policy. I'm taking the warning off. Gene Nygaard 00:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps more to the point, we do have guidelines at Help:Merging and moving pages. If you want to push your interpretation as the proper one, that is exactly where you need to make your case. Not by slapping a warning on this template. Gene Nygaard 00:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
interleaved comment This page might also be relevant: Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Policy trumps guidelines. As I said you are free to try and show how the GFDL allows your actions. If you cannot basic interlectal integrity should force you to withdraw your objections.Geni 11:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
To put "policy trumps guidelines" in a more constructive way one can say "Guidelines must abide by policy". If the guidelines that Gene has referred to are in conflict with policy, then he is right to refer you there to provide expert input into appropriate revisions of the guideline. The fact that the phrase "interlectical integrity" might be difficult to understand not only for me but also for others here is perhaps an indicator that you are not directing persuasive arguments to the correct group of editors. We are not in any way opposed to abiding by policy; the fact is that policy is not immune to interpretation and the fact that the present template (and guideline) is as it is indicates that the interpretation might well have changed over time. Please go to the guideline to present arguments; this template and others are artifacts that rely upon the appropriate interpretation of policy and guideline. To ramble on a bit more, discussing here is like relating your opposition to a company's direction by persuading the administrative assistant at the front door. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)