Template talk:Merge

Active discussions
WikiProject Merge
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Merge, an attempt to reduce the articles to be merged backlog and improve the merging process. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

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

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

Only some of these templates have been protected. But since these templates should work similarly, please discuss any changes on this talk page first. Any user can edit the documentation, add interwikis and categories, since as usual the /doc sub-pages are not protected.

Merging template bugsEdit

Per my experiments on the sandbox, I have discovered several bugs with the Merging template that should be addressed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AngusWOOF/sandbox&oldid=894764108

1) If the Merging template is filled in with carriage returns after each param, then it does not list the link to the target article correctly.

{{Merging
|Section 13 of the Constitution of Australia
|dir=into
|talk=Talk:Double dissolution#Merge articles
|date=April 2019}}

The spaces would have to be removed, as in this example:

{{Merging|Section 13 of the Constitution of Australia|dir=into|talk=Talk:Double dissolution#Merge articles|date=April 2019}}

2) If the Merging template is applied to non-main space such as User or Draft, then the target link must go to the same space. This might be intentional but if so, then it should be pointed out. It looks like this was already reported at Template_talk:Merge#Merge_templates_don't_work_across_namespace

Thanks in advance for any code fixes you can do. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: It is normal behaviour. Positional parameters always preserve whitespace (spaces, tabs, carriage returns, line feeds and form feeds); named parameters strip it. This is documented at WP:PARAMETER. You don't need to remove all of the spaces and newlines yourself - or even any of them. These will work:
{{Merging
|Section 13 of the Constitution of Australia|dir=into
|talk=Talk:Double dissolution#Merge articles
|date=April 2019}}
- no extraneous whitespace in the positional parameter, use as much as you like in the named params; or
{{Merging
|1=Section 13 of the Constitution of Australia
|dir=into
|talk=Talk:Double dissolution#Merge articles
|date=April 2019}}
- explicitly numbering the parameter converts it from a positional parameter into a named param. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Redrose64, I updated the merging doc to explain this in case others get the same problem. Hope that's alright. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 04:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 May 2019Edit

I suggest that a no category option should be added to {{merge}}, {{merge to}} and {{merge from}}. This would be helpful for maintaining the Category:Items to be merged which is the category where merge tags in non article space go. Many of these tags are people copying an article with a merge tag to their user space to perform a major edit or test other things with the article, these pages should not be in the category and straight up removing them is something I've been critizsized for before. The best way to solve this issue would be adding this no category option. Trialpears (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Trialpears (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please create a mockup of the suggested changes in this template's sandbox DannyS712 (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Reopening since I now have created a mockup in each templates sandbox. I am a very inexperienced template editor, but it seems to me like this is working. Testing was performed by previewing edits made on pages where this feature would be applied when incorporated and observing that the category was gone without changing other appearance. For testing recreation purposes these were the pages I used: User:MoRsE/Finnish War, User:Abyssal and User:Mudwater/draft8 and all I did was changing the template to the corresponding sandbox version and adding the parameter noref=true. This removed the items to be merged category in all three cases. Trialpears (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The code used was copied from Wikipedia:Category suppression#Attribute-based suppression examples. Trialpears (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea what's happening here. 😵 Abyssal (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Your user page has a few merge tags that add it to Category:Items to be merged. It should not be in that category since you're not proposing that your user page should be merged into another page. To remove the category from your user page and other similar pages without disturbing your talk page I'm suggesting that a no category option should be added to the merge template. The reason you were tagged was because I used your page as a random test page. Trialpears (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  Not done for now: I think this needs a consensus. On that point, if you are being criticized for removing pages from the maintenance queue that shouldn't be in the maintenance queue, you should probably get a third opinion from a trusted editor. Alternatively, don't remove the tags, just use {{tl}} or a comment to hide/remove from display the template. Izno (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The critique was regarding changing things in other peoples user spaces not for removing pages from the maintenance category. I believe there is consensus that the category should only be used for actual merge requests, but I will add a link to this page on WT:WikiProject Merge. For the suggestion to use {{tl}} or commenting out the tag: That is what I have been doing. Sample edits from hours before the complaint include this and this with all edits being similar to these. I also want to note that after explaining my positon to @Slatersteven: they thought what I was doing was fine, but encouraged me to have more polite edit summaries. The primary reason for me suggesting this edit instead of continuing like I've been doing is to make the edits even less intrusive and to remove pages that use the tags for demonstrative purposes such as WP:WikiProject Merge. Trialpears (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
No I think I said leaving a message would be better then altering users sandboxes. I accepted your explanation, I did not say I agreed with it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. It seems like wbm1058's solution will solve this problem without requireing edits to user pages though so no more edits should have to be performed for this purpose (and none have since you commented on my talk page). Trialpears (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: I have been just ignoring this category up to now, but your edit-requests have brought it to my attention. Before proposing changes to templates, a deeper analysis should be done to understand the rationale for and purpose of the template. Looking at the edit which created the category, I see Group misplaced items!, indicating that the category's creator believed that the merge templates were only intended for use in mainspace, and use in any other namespace was invalid. An edit request was made under the section-heading Distinguishing non-article namespace (implemented HERE). Category creator William Allen Simpson said "I'm trying to clean up non-articles, like Categories, that should never use it." The choice of name for this category wasn't ideal, as it didn't communicate the concept that is was intended to report misplaced templates. But, seeing the simple template edit, it's understandable. It's easy to insert the word "Articles" when NAMESPACE is null and "Items" when it's not. Similar edits were made to Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from, which weren't edit protected. The purpose of Category:Items to be merged was muddled by this edit which singled out templates and categories, but removed the idea that anything in the category was misplaced.

Your proposal would still require editing pages in userspace to add |nocat=true, which strikes me as a lot of unnecessary, low-priority work that risks annoying some editors. I think we should just ignore the templates in user space; we can update the templates to never categorize pages in user space. These tags are relatively harmless, and if an editor wants to discuss updating an article with changes they made to a copy or draft in their sandbox, that editor should simply initiate discussion on the talk page for the article. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That sounds great! I have been a bit hesitent to straight up removing them all since I have once found content that was actually suitable for a merge and had was not copied from an article. I do however realise that as you said this is low-priority work and not a good use of editor time. I think your suggeestion would be both more efficient and less controversial and fully support it. Trialpears (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Dated maintenance category (shortcut: {{DMC}}) adds the category. So we just avoid calling this template when the merge tag in in userspace. wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Help:Switch parser function describes how #switch: works. I needed to refresh my memory on this.

||Talk={{DMC|Articles to be merged|from||All articles to be merged}} this line handles both mainspace and talk.

|#default={{DMC|||Items to be merged}} this line handles all other namespaces. we just need to insert special handling for the userspaces above this line.

OK, I have a new version – if there are no objections after a reasonable wait time for comments, I'll make it live. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Donewbm1058 (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Why don't users of this template actually start any discussions?Edit

I find myself wondering why the documentation for this template does not recommend that editors adding it to articles should actually start a discussion by arguing their case for the merge. The reasoning isn't always obvious, and certainly by adding the tag you are establishing that the merge is potentially controversial and discussion is probably required. If the editor prefers not to boldly merge or redirect, it seems a little pointless to even tag the article if you're not going to justify yourself. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 15:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed!--50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:MERGEPROP explicitly directs you to start a discussion. That is precisely what I did at Talk:Exothermic welding#Merge discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed wording improvement (to Merge)Edit

Proposed (with support from wbm here:) Change the template, because "It has been suggested that this page be merged with Y to Z" sounds very awkward or not grammatical, and "Proposed: Merge X and Y into Z" is better. wbm1058 wrote there: Yes, "Proposed:" is more concise than "It has been suggested that". --50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


Proposed fix to Merge to (this is a bigger fix - args move around)Edit

Also: (this page is shared - its also the talk page for {{Merge to}}) I think I found in October that the {{Merge to}} template has a problem:

{{Merge to|Total dissolved solids|TDS meter|date=October 2019|discuss=Talk:TDS_meter}} results in

but if I'm not mistaken, it should result in something more like

Suggested: Merge this page and TDS meter be merged into Total dissolved solids. (Discuss) Proposed since October 2019.

That is:

Suggested: Merge this page and <arg 3> be merged into <arg 2>.

P.S.: OR, perhaps it's just the documentation for {{Merge to}} that needs improvement? If it supports a target= parameter, it's not documented.

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The way that it was used in your October diff link to Talk:Total suspended solids is incorrect; the template is intended for use on the article not a talk page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Merge" page.