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.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"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. StormContent (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The current wording is grammatically correct; see English subjunctive. Ucucha (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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 ((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'". Mark Hurd (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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. Debresser (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2011 (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. Mark Hurd (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2011 (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. Kevin Rutherford (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. Mark Hurd (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. — 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... Mark Hurd (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay...who wants to go ahead and help clear out everything with me? Kevin Rutherford (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. hare j 16:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, let's do that! Kevin Rutherford (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. — 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? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This has been proposed and rejected in the past.

In terms of implementation, a merger suggestion has more in common with a ((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). —David Levy 19:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, do you think that we should open a formal discussion or something? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding what, specifically? —David Levy 22:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding if there should be a mandatory "reason" parameter in merge templates. If I understand correctly. 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. —David Levy 02:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll get to doing that eventually. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have suggested to SmackBot's author that it should do something different when ((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 handful of people. In one case there has even been discussion added when the page has been specified there (where I fixed the issue), but otherwise I just deleted the template [1][2][3], and suggested SmackBot does the same, with a note to the adding editor (which I only did for the only recent merge suggestion). Mark Hurd (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. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The examples already included OtherPage, 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 OtherPage to the first references as well, and some other updates, including adding these wrong cases to Testcases. Mark Hurd (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. Rich Farmbrough, 21:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC).

((Merge partner)) already does this, placing the articles in Category:Articles for merging with no partner. Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC).

Yes, I saw this issue because of that category (I linked to it above under handful of people). What I saw as a problem was that ((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 ((Merge)), ((Merge to)), ((Merge from)), and ((Merge partner)) where I added something visible when ((Merge partner)) does its thing and the end of the Mbox needed changing to include the possible output of ((Merge partner)). You can review the testcases. Mark Hurd (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The two incidents I just covered from Category:Articles for merging with no partner were added using Twinkle. I have notified the developers on the talk page. Mark Hurd (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2011 (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.)
I tried to add a Merge to template to the incubated article, but it just shows a red link to On Your Radar (album). Similarly, adding a Merge from template going the other way would also give a red link.
I presume that linking between namespaces causes difficulties. Adding "en:" before the article name hasn't helped. Any ideas? Bazonka (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Help:Merging#Caveats explains that you shouldn't add the WP prefix: When proposing a merger of pages within "Wikipedia" namespace (any pages that begin with the "Wikipedia:" prefix), do not include this prefix in the parameter. mabdul 12:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd seen that, but I thought I'd give it a go anyway. Also, I note that this issue has been discussed before (see talkpage archives), and not satisfactorily resolved. Bazonka (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please put the ((Merge partner)) stuff on the same line as the preceding closing “))”, as I have done in the sandbox (462997367). It means you can write

((merge|somewhere))

 

Article text

without an unusually large gap being rendered in between.

Vadmium (talk, contribs) 01:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. Standard removal of whiteline from templates. Debresser (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Can someone please explain why ((merge partner)) is a separate template rather than a part of this code anyway? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly so that it can be used with other merge templates. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, software engineering principle of encapsulation. (Which is not without its problems when templating on WP, but that really more concerns stuff like cite, convert and project banners.) Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

The template defaults to creating a link to the target page's talk page. (E.g. if I place on "Article A" ((mergeto|Article B)) 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? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I proposed this change to this template about 18 months ago, and my proposal was apparently ignored. I'd like to open the discussion again, as I feel that the proper place to discuss most merges is at the source page, not the destination page. Thoughts? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That wouldn't work where there is a proposal to merge more than one article into another. E.g. both A and B are to be merged into C. The discussion would need to be at C - you wouldn't want two separate discussions at both A and B. When you're only proposing to merge one article into another, then it doesn't really matter where the discussion is, as long as people can find it. So best to keep it consistent and have the discussion in the target article's talk page. Bazonka (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

For an example, see List of streetcar systems in the United States. I propose changing

destination

in Template:merging to

((#ifeq: ((lc:(({dir|))))} | from | source | destination ))

-Colfer2 (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I made the above edit and tested it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMerging&diff=536431573&oldid=452085729 -Colfer2 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

ok, here is a thought that, to me, seems obvious & (with respect) LONG overdue:

how about having both (or all) "sides" of one proposed merge point to the SAME discussion?

for extra credit, the template could add a link on the talkpages of the other affected article(s)...

Lx 121 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That is already common practice. Debresser (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

does the template do it automatically? because if it's supposed to, it doesn't (or doesn't always work).

when i posted the above, i'd just been on a proposed merge where each "half" was pointing to a different talkpage (the ones attached to each article), & there was no automatically-created section for discussing the merge, & no link (automatic or otherwise) to a merge discussion on the other article's talkpage). Lx 121 (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the template doesn't do it automatically in the case of complex merges. On a simple ((mergeto)) (with only one target) and ((mergefrom)) it used to put this dicussion on the talk page of the merge target, but it doesn't assign a specific subsection by default. For more complex merges, and merges where the proposer cannot decide where the merged article should be, it cannot be done automatically. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Lx 121, that sounds like a good idea. How could we improve things to make that happen? Perhaps we just need better documentation? Templates already handle most of the work when I see 2 pages that I suspect cover the same subject:

1. I arbitrarily pick one of the two titles as the "destination" title. (I pick the phrase that is the most common in my experience, according to WP:COMMONNAME, even when it doesn't "sound professional").
2. I add a section to the destination page (if a merge discussion does not already exist) with a section heading including the word "merge" where I suggest a merger.[4]
3. I add the ((merge from)) template on top of the destination page, and add the ((merge to)) template on top of the source page. For example, I put "((merge from|blood pump))" on one page[5], and "((merge to|ventricular assist device))" on another page[6].
4. Later, a bot automagically dates the tags for me.
5. Later, editors who click on the word "discussion" in either merge notice are automatically taken to one and the SAME discussion page -- the talk page of page I picked as the "destination". (Alas, they both point to the *top* of the discussion page, rather than the specific "merge" section I created -- but the word "merge" in the automagically generated table of contents WP:TOC typically makes it pretty quick for interested editors to find the merge discussion section).
6. Weeks, months, or years later, I or some other editor actually merges the pages together. I prefer using the WP:FMERGE process.

(Is there a better way to more-or-less automatically send everyone to the SAME merge discussion?)

This is more-or-less the sequence of events suggested by the documentation pages (Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger and WP:MERGEPROP and Template:Merge/doc), except those pages suggest manually adding a "discuss" parameter to send everyone to the same discussion. When well-meaning editors try to follow the instructions to add a "discuss" parameter, alas, sometimes they accidentally put a slightly different "discuss" parameter in the merge template on the two pages they want to merge, which ends up splitting the discussion about a single merger over two different pages.[7][8] Adding that parameter is more error-prone than using the shiny new ((merge from)) and ((merge to)) templates, which automatically send everyone to the same discussion, with less work.

How can we improve the documentation to recommend a less error-prone process, without making the documentation unnecessarily complicated? --DavidCary (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate for the "automatic" pointer on the "to" page be the name of the "from" page, rather than "Merge"; i.e. if we have

Article A

((mergeto|Article B))

Article B

((mergefrom|Article A))

then the default discussion location should be Talk:Article B#Article A.

It would be then be helpful if the bot were to create a discussion section if none existed, but it still wouldn't work if there were an existing section with that name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on an article that I think should be merged, but I'm not sure which of two different articles it should be merged into.

On Ryan Sharma, if I add:

• ((merge to|People's Republic (novel)|List of CHERUB characters))

I get:

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into People's Republic (novel) and List of CHERUB characters.

or

• ((merge to|People's Republic (novel)))
((merge to|List of CHERUB characters))

I get:

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into People's Republic (novel). (Discuss)
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into List of CHERUB characters. (Discuss)

What I'd prefer is something that says

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into People's Republic (novel) (Discuss) or List of CHERUB characters (Discuss)

Is there a template that does something like this, or is the latter my best option? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This would require a change of ((merge to)). I have another request for ((merge to)), I would like to be able to suggest a merger of two (or more) articles/sections into one (or more) articles/sections. This would allow visitors to immediately see what other locations content would be moved from. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This edit request is more of a cosmetic change to the way that the Template:Merge, Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from templates will appear when they are posted on pages/articles or sections, respectively. I have found a way, using syntax, to be able to specify that the merge to/from request is in relation to a section or a page. In other words, rather than the templates stating "It has been suggested that this page/article or section...", I have developed syntax that will allow the templates to state "It has been suggested that this page..." or "It has been suggested that this section..." (on Merge and Merge to), or "...be merged into this page." or "...be merged into this section." (on Merge from). By default, this edit request will leave the templates stating "page/article" without mention of the "section" wording. Anyways, without further ado, here is my edit request: Please replace this text in these templates:

((#if:((NAMESPACE))|page|article)) or section

...with this text...

((#ifeq:((yesno|(({section|))}|yes=1))|1|section|((#if:((NAMESPACE))|page|article))))

...this request will allow the editor to put a new "section" qualifier; when this qualifier's value is "yes", the word in the templates will display as "section" instead of "page/article". My edit request, as worded, also makes it so that these templates will never be worded as "page or section", but instead will specifically state "page/article" or "section" by itself. Also, this edit request has been tested on Template:Merge/sandbox, Template:Merge to/sandbox and Template:Merge from/sandbox. And, of course, I will update the doc files if this edit request is accepted.

P.S. If you would rather the "or section" wording remain, you could use this line instead:

((#ifeq:((yesno|(({section|))}|yes=1))|1|section|((#if:((NAMESPACE))|page or section|article or section))))

Thank you in advance. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Simplified the addition of a |section= parameter and updated the sandboxes. — Bility (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 changes made. (Sorry for the delay.) Please can the documentation of these templates be updated accordingly? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Documentation updated. — Bility (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please update ((Merge)) with the Template:Merge/sandbox version. Use of this new version is demonstrated at Template:Demonic Toys and Template:The Demonic Toys series. Thank you, Wbm1058 (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, but how about adding some tracking categories too? Perhaps we could use Category:Misplaced merge templates. We could track transclusions both in the template namespace and in the category namespace. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I found the problem with the Demonic Toys templates because the console report of my Merge bot reported an error in Charles Band, which transcludes one of them. Of course, as that bot runs as a scheduled task on my Windows 7 PC, I'm the only one with access to that report. We do already have a Category:Articles for merging with no partner which is populated by another kind of error. There are so many different possible errors in this area that it's probably overkill to create categories for each specific error. Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates is a nice example of a more generic Category:Wikipedia template cleanup category. Maybe just use Category:Pages with misplaced templates? Oh, is Category:Wikipedia template cleanup for templates that themselves need cleanup, or for pages with misused templates? We have several of these maintenance categories, and a problem with them is it isn't always easy for volunteer patrollers to find them. Category:Missing redirects is one I happened to run across a while ago, which looked like it hadn't been tended to in a while. But I digress. Anyhow it would be nice if more editors notice and understand ((error)) messages and fix their own problems, so we don't have to track and fix them later. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. I went with Category:Pages with misplaced templates as you suggested. Sorry for the inordinate amount of time that this request has been sitting open for - if this happens the next time you file an edit request, feel free to post on my talk page to remind me, or in extreme cases a post to WP:AN will do the trick. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't we just have a ((move)) and/or ((move to)) template that can be placed at the header of a page? Yes, I know all about Template:Requested_move, but that's the talk page discussion template. I'm talking about the little templates at the beginning of an article, similar to ((merge)) as in –

It has been suggested that this (really silly-named article) be moved to (this much more snappy-sounding page-name).

Obviously, I am not talking about changing brand names or whatever, but mostly events, such as Protests against suppression of Cantonese speaking tradition, which was eventually redirected to Guangzhou Television Cantonese controversy.

Possible? BigSteve (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it's technically possible to tag articles with notice of proposed move discussions. This template (((Merge))) would apply if there were two actual articles, titled Protests against suppression of Cantonese speaking tradition and Guangzhou Television Cantonese controversy, with duplicated content, i.e., a wp:Content fork. You would use ((Merge)) to propose merging them into a single article to eliminate the fork. There is an article template for wp:Move reviews – see ((mrv)) which has been under discussion for nearly a month here. While I think consensus for tagging articles with move review notifications, at least on an optional basis, will eventually be confirmed, there is no consensus for tagging articles with notice of requested moves themselves. In any event, this isn't the forum to propose that. I would propose that over at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, which is a widely watched talk page. I'm guessing that this has been discussed in the past. You might want to search the archives of that talk page for relevant past discussions. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the detailed reply! BigSteve (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

@Bigzteve:I just realized that there are at least a couple of templates related to article titles that might be sometimes used:

• ((Disputed title))
• ((POV-title))

These seem to operate in an alternate universe of Dispute and Neutrality templates. I would think that anyone tagging an article with one of these templates would want to submit a requested move to fix the problem! Wbm1058 (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Merge section uses

((merge|(({1|))}|small=left))

which seems ineffective now but used to display as specified. Any ideas what change caused it to break? Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add to

((#switch:((NAMESPACE))
 ||Talk=((DMC|Articles to be merged|from|(({date|))}|All articles to be merged))
 |#default=((DMC|||Items to be merged))
))

as follows:

((#switch:((NAMESPACE))
 ||Talk=((DMC|Articles to be merged|from|(({date|))}|All articles to be merged))
 |Template=[[Items to be merged|ω((PAGENAME))]]
 |Category=[[Items to be merged|ω((PAGENAME))]]
 |#default=[[Items to be merged|((PAGENAME))]]
))

This in order to easily spot in Category:Items to be merged templates and categories that are tagged with regular merge templates instead of with their more specific merge templates. This is useful for people like me who regularly check Category:Items to be merged for templates or categories and re-tag them correctly if found.

As similar system is in use on Template:Broken ref which sorts in categories like Category:Pages with missing references list, where the result can be seen by way of example.

Note that the use of the straightforward "Items to be merged" category is not a loss compared to using ((DMC)), since that category is not sorted by date and the incorrectly tagged pages will be visited soon by editors who will surely recognize an invalid date format. If some editors would still consider this problematic then a fork of DMC can be created to convey the |(ω)((PAGENAME)) sorting parameter. Debresser (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I added a ((merge to)) to the article Egr vs scr as part of my proposal that it be merged into the Emissions section of the article diesel engine. I specified the destination and discussion as follows: ((Merge to|Diesel engine#Emissions|discuss=Talk:Diesel engine#Merger proposal: article Egr vs scr into section Emissions|date=January 2013)) . However, on the resulting tag, the destination link appears as Diesel engine#Emissions but links to diesel engine, when it should link to the correct section of the article (like the Discuss link does). - Ian01 (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I just ran into the same problem. I left my #Section part in there anyway, because I think people know what it means, but the link does not in fact work correctly. It goes to the right page, but not to a section within that page. I'm merging from a specific section, not from a whole article. --Silas Ropac (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the culprit is the ((Pagelist)) template, which has code like

[[:((NAMESPACE)):((PAGENAME:target#section))|target#section]]

Whatever happened to “keeping it simple” and manually writing out [[target 1#section 1]] and [[target 2#section 2]], rather than having magic words within templates within templates? :P Vadmium (talk, contribs) 06:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC).

As of October 2013, it appears that this bug is still unresolved. Jarble (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

@Vadmium: Another year has passed, and the template is still broken. Does anyone know how to fix this template? Jarble (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don’t know exactly how to fix it. It seems there is now a programming script that generates the bad link at Module:Pagelist. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 06:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

Using the mergeto template, is it possible to suggest a merge to a specific section of an article? I've noticed that ((mergeto|Calculus#Principles)) creates a link to [[Calculus]] instead of creating a link to [[Calculus#Principles]]. Jarble (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

((Merge to)) uses ((Pagelist)) which uses the magic word PAGENAME, which removes the section, as you can see here: ((PAGENAME:User:Debresser#About_myself)) renders Debresser. Debresser (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

So the answer is no? Ian01 (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I might have just created a requested edit that will eventually lead to this; this request might be step 1 in a step 2 process. I'm going to work on step 2 later (as "step 1" only make a cosmetic change to the template.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

@Steel1943: As of December 27, 2013, this change has not yet been implemented. Has any progress been made since April 2013? Jarble (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Steel1943:: It's been one year since my last comment, but the ((merge)) template is still broken. Are there any plans to repair it? Jarble (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jarble: I'm not sure if I'll ever get around to this, but I could pick your brain for a question I have regarding this that may help myself, or someone else editing this template; what should the parameter where the section name can be inputted ... be named? I myself would suggest section=, but that parameter had already been taken on this template. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: The article and section should be combined in a single parameter, like this one: Wikipedia#Policies and laws. This is how the section parameter for the ((Content fork)) template works. Jarble (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Using the mergeto template, is it possible to suggest a merge to a specific section of an article?" – All of this article-space template-tweaking in an attempt to communicate the entire content of one's drive-by merge proposal is just further contributing to our merging backlogs. This should not be a substitute for engaging in substantive discussions on the talk page. Yes, it is possible to suggest a merge to a specific section of an article. Make that suggestion on the talk page, please. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Template:Duplication is a template-fork of Template:Merge. The original intent was just to flag obvious content-forks (e.g. biographies of the same person) for priority merging. The mission creep to WP:summary style section-merging has spun the merging backlog out of control. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This template is used at Dandakaranya Development Authority but it has (Discuss) as a red link. Surely red links should not appear in this kind of template. Is anyone going to do anything about this. If not then please remove it. I give you seven days. Jodosma (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Jodosma: This talk page is for discussing how to improve or edit the template Template:Merge, not about applications of how/why it was applied on specific pages. I would recommend either starting the merge discussion on Talk:Dandakaranya Project (which is the "red link" you see), or getting in contact with the editor who placed the merge tag to find out why it was placed (the editor being Jonesey95.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Jodosma, there is no mystery here. The ((merge)) template links to a talk page for the merge target by default. When the target Talk page does not exist, the "Discuss" link is red. I have created the Talk page in question anyway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

((Merge sections)) may be modified to avoid duplicating ((Merge)), provided it's backwards compatible -- the section=y part cannot be lost; also it used to support small=y, which seems broken. Fgnievinski (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion for Template:Merge sections existence is taking place on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 10#Template:Merge sections. Please direct all comments there. Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Also, Fgnievinski, your concern seems more like an update that should be made to Template:Merge (regarding the "small=y" concern) and not directly related to Template:Merge sections. Steel1943 (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'll report the comment as instructed; the small=y part is a secondary issue. Fgnievinski (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone have any objection to having a bot remove merge templates on pages where there is a merge template placed on a page and no one opens up a discussion on why they placed the tag? I know that we are allowed to remove templates if there is no discussion, but there is currently no thing on this page that allows for people to remove the templates if both pages are tagged and there is no discussion, but I don't want to amend it on this page unless there is consensus to do so. I also have left a note on the bot request page to have someone do that, just so people are aware. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be within the rules, but who is to decide what is enough time to remove the template. At the moment, Category:Articles to be merged shows that there are merge templates from November 2011. Debresser (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say at least a month, with a maximum of three months. If an editor places a tag with no intention of explaining why they want to merge the articles, then there is no way that we would know why they want to merge the articles or why it was even placed to begin with. Thus, it could remain for years without anyone even checking it, which leads to unnecessary clutter on the page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This same question, how long should a template be on a page, can be asked for other templates as well. I think we should ask broader input on this question. Sometimes, especially on articles that are no visited often, it can take considerable time before somebody posts an opinion, or takes action. A rule that would limit the time a merge template can be on a page will make it de facto unlikely that such articles will be merged. I personally would be in favor of a span of a year even. Debresser (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

When compared to POV templates, where there also is a rule that they can be removed if discussion is dormant (without a strict timeframe, notably), there usually is fervent discussion. Such is the nature of POV templates. But merge templates are not like that. When I see a template I think "Maybe. Not a bad idea", but I don't necessarily start taking part in the discussion. That is another reason why I think the timeframe should be generous. Debresser (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I am thinking that we could give at least six months for something like this, as I know Merge bot is the one that helps to clean out some of this. My main issue is that I have run into templates that were added many years ago, and so they have had a lot of time to be discussed, but without a rationale for doing the merger, or another tag on the article, it is hard to gauge if they seriously want to have the page merged, or just are performing a drive-by request of sorts, without actually going into details. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

We have an ongoing problem where the default use of these templates gives a link to a merge discussion that addresses a Talk: page, but not a section within that Talk: page. (Thankfully they do now at least point to the same page.)

I suggest that ((Merge to)) should use the following to default its discuss parameter:

[[(({discuss|Talk: (({1))}#Merge of ((PAGENAME))))]]

Similarly for ((Merge from)), but transposed appropriately. If multiple merge targets are used, dropping the defaulting and relying on the editor setting it manually would be reasonable. Such cases are rare. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me add further, back about six years ago the help for these was written specifically and with great care to aim people (step by step forsooth!) to INITIATE a talk section, then link that in both article instances, whichever template was used. Seems to me a spot check a year or two ago had that language pretty much as I carefully wrote it.

PROBLEM...

Now the help indicates 'discuss=' is optional, not just the start, and apparently the linking template chains (kludge) is breaking the talk page section link (see the other section above--this has apparently been the case for over a year!).

• PROPOSE STRONGLY, go back to the simpler template construction without all the nesting and make it MANDANDTORY under pain of RED ERROR MESSAGE that not linking the discuss talk section makes the perpetrator look like an ass... for this action is a pre-requisite... if he/she feels strongly enough about the merge appropriateness, then please clue us in with your reasoning, and take the time to let us know what that is. If YOU CAN'T be bothered, DON'T bother us requiring US TO WASTE TIME figuring out where such a discussion might be, and (THEN!) whether it has merit! [These in your face tags are our of control... we need a committee of admins to Vet them or something!]

So 1) Fix the template section linking, 2) fix the help making such mandatory, 3) install error messaging in the template (After an interval when a hidden category lists those with invalid section links... cleaned up, then add the errors) Best regards! // FrankB 16:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Can we get some movement on this please? It's tedious for humans to have to set these discussion links up manually, robots should be doing that for us. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Template:Merge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "suggested" to "proposed" — Music1201 ^talk 03:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this wording change, but let's wait a bit for any possible objections. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Either way is fine by me. Just keep in mind that a number of similar templates, such as ((merge to)) and ((split)), use "suggested". This edit request has implications for those templates as well. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The list appears to be ((Split)), ((Split and dab)), ((Split dab)), ((Split section)), ((Split portions)), ((Merge to)), ((Merge)), ((Merge from)), and ((Merge portions from)). I personally see this change being unnecessary and unnecessarily using server resources just to make a somewhat inconsequential wording update on highly visible templates. Very much inclined to toggle this, because it's encouraged to gain consensus via discussion before opening up a TPROT edit request, not keep this open to gain visibility and discussion through it. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Seem to be 13000 transclusions for all the templates on Andy's list. If this is to be done, and I don't think one editor's aesthetic whim is a good reason, it should be done alongside some of the more serious and necessary (and ignored) points further up the talk page. for (;;) (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the change, but only alongside some more serious changes. I distinctly remember that Merge used to work cross-template in the past. Debresser (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@For (;;) and Debresser: The current sandbox is now namespace-sensitive for |target=, not for |1=, |2=, .. |20=. The current implementation using ((Pagelist)) assumes that all 20 pages are in the same namespace as the original, and if we're deviating from that, allowing any namespaces, that would be a bigger change. Is there consensus for that? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Mr. Stradivarius, this merge template uses Module:Pagelist to get a list of page links. A current issue is that there is no way to override namespace individually for the 20 unnamed params; in fact, currently it defaults only to the namespace of the current page. (e.g. a link may display as "Wikipedia:Merging" when the link is to the mainspace "Merging".) A temporary workaround is to pass a new |nspace= from this template to ((Pagelist)) to make the 20 links change namespace together (which may be valid, since it's unlikely a request will come along asking to merge a page with a Wikipedia-namespace page and a Portal page, for example). Do you see a simpler solution? Or do you think module pagelist could be changed to be namespace-sensitive? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: As per Andy's original comment, there should be a proper discussion about changing the wording (or not) before a request is made. The above conversation got rather quickly off-topic, so I invite further comment, and if a consensus is reached the tper can be re-opened. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: Well on a side note, the issue discussed not in this section but above has a solution (cross-namsepace merges), which would introduce |nspace=all as a special case. The change is queued up at Module:Pagelist/sandbox and Template:Merge/sandbox. Although I'm on semiwikibreak, I'll sync this if there are no complaints. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: I synced, and now ((Merge)) supports cross-namespace merges by default. This requires specifying a namespace prefix, so I updated the doc accordingly. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I just proposed merging Wikipedian of the Year and Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year using these templates, but the links in the template don't seem to work right - from the main namespace, the link shows up in the text of the template OK, but the link just links back to the mainspace article. From the other, I can't seem to point it towards mainspace - it assumes that the destination article is in Wikipedia: namespace. Fortunately, the discussion links seem to work OK. Any chance this behaviour could be fixed so that cross-namespace mergers are supported, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you should use 2=Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Trying ((merge from|2=Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year|date=June 2016)) at Wikipedian of the Year doesn't seem to change the behaviour - it still links to the mainspace article, not the one in Wikipedia: namespace. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk)

Sorry: 1=Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year. By the way, next time it would really help if you would inform us at what article the problem occurs. Debresser (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope, still doesn't work. ((merge|1=Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year)) at Wikipedian of the Year shows "Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year" in the text, but the link still goes to Wikipedian of the year. I think I've linked to the relevant article sthree times now - the merge has already taken place, so the banner isn't used there now, but you can still try adding the code quoted earlier in this comment to see the bug in action. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk)

This seems to be working as expected now, thanks @Andy M. Wang! Mike Peel (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Could I please ask someone who can edit the template, to remove the words "and may be outdated" from the template please? Having those words present is a disclaimer, which is redundant per WP:NDA to the general disclaimers at the bottom of every page. It is not our job to indicate to a user that the content may be outdated, it's their responsibility to research that for themselves. Dane|Geld 18:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a gross violation of WP:Point. Please consider this a gentle warning. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Is this, or is it not, a disclaimer? Simple question. Dane|Geld 21:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be about Template:Merging. While DaneGeld may or may not be trying to prove a point here (I haven't taken the time to form an opinion on that matter), the "and may be outdated" bit does seem unnecessary to that template's purpose of notifying people about a pending merge. Does anyone object to the actual proposal rather than the possible motivations of the person proposing it? Anomie⚔ 11:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Use Template:Update to flag articles with outdated content. That template is for flagging articles that actually are outdated and need to be updated, but not simply those that may need to be updated. Template:Merging is for combining articles with redundant content, not about updating outdated articles. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI. This advice dates to 2004, and the rationale was indicated in this edit: Also, while the merging takes place, it is recommended that you place the ((merging | target=Target article name)) template on the page that you will merge from (the source page). In this way, confusion will be avoided, as others will know that the source page is outdated, and that all further contributions should be included in the target page. How will others "know" that the source page is outdated, if you tell them that it "may be outdated"? That's not a way to avoid confusion. Merging shouldn't be a process that drags out for months, but unfortunately Template:Merging might encourage that. It's harder to merge a moving target. Yes, further contributions should be included in the target page, but maybe it would be better to use ((in use)) to discourage such "further contributions" until after the merge is completed. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)