Template talk:Merge

Active discussions
  (Redirected from Template talk:Merging)
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.

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)[]

2:0 after 6 months = consensus. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[]
  Done – I've implemented your suggested changes to {{Merge}} and {{Merge to}} which have been in their sandboxes for two months. wbm1058 (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[]
My view is that such a change needed broader discussion before implementation; can this be reverse and taken to a request for comment, and a call for comment placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge, as few will watch this template talk and it affects the vast majority of merge proposals. My specific concern is that the original form was fine and grammatical; it was in passive voice, but that seems appropriate given the context. The replacement is briefer, but awkward and not grammatical; there's a missing "that" and there is capitalization mid-sentence. If a change was really thought necessary, rather than "Suggested: This page be merged ..." consider "Suggested: that this page be merged ..." Klbrain (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[]
I share all of Klbrain's concerns. Can this be reversed while a wider consensus is sought? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[]
  Undone: This request has been undone. --Bsherr (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[]
I'm not aware of other banners using this construction with the colon, and I think it's less comprehensible than a full sentence. But another way of making the banner message more concise and more consistent with other banners would be changing it to present tense: "it is suggested". --Bsherr (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Bsherr(oops)Klbrain, can you finish? Can you take these to / call for comment as you say needed to be done (even though this has already been discussed in multiple places)? Or can you, Bsherr? I don't get it. The fix that I think is most needed because the template is most broken is here: [1] you'll note: I was told to move the discussion here and did; this is SECOND time I've been told I'm discussing it in the wrong place. :-( --50.201.195.170 (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Also I think the fact that "The whole idea that a single article should be merged into two or more other articles seems odd to me." was said below by wbm1058 disproves "that the original form was fine and grammatical". It results from failure to understand what "It has been suggested that this page be merged with Y to Z" means - and that is the original form! "The following has been proposed: merge X and Y into Z" is better, and "Proposed: Merge X and Y into Z" is better yet. IMO. When the idea to be conveyed is that there's a proposal for X & Y to be deleted, after the good content in them is moved to Z. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Wbm1058's assertion is about the object of the sentence and whether it is ambiguous, not the merits of replacing the complete sentence with a fragment introduced by a verb with a colon. On that latter question, as of yet, I only see support from you and opposition from me and Klbrain, but I welcome further discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[]
With apologies, I inadvertently left out 207.161.86.162– ...opposition from me, Klbrain, and 207.161.86.162.... --Bsherr (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[]
In my own opinion, no further notifications of this discussion are necessary, and the discussion is in the correct place. But I believe Klbrain's assertion that template talk pages are not widely watched, meaning one should expect that what will be most likely to inform others of this discussion is the actual change to the template. I assume that's how Klbrain arrived here. --Bsherr (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Bsherr, your accounting is messed up. Further discussion? How about counting the !votes properly in the existing discussion that you're ignoring first? From line 1: "Proposed (with support from Wbm1058 here". Sheesh. Partly copied here:
Yes, "Proposed:" is more concise than "It has been suggested that". Please start discussions to change the template wording at Template talk:Merge. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[]
That is him at that time supporting "Proposed:". OK?
Again, the current language is, "It has been suggested that this page be merged with Y to Z". Can we not do better? Are you really claiming that it is proper when the idea to be conveyed is that there's a proposal for X & Y to be deleted, after the good content in them is moved to Z? You don't point out a flaw in my proof (by counterexample) that it's not fine. I claim you can't. How could Wbm1058's assertion have been anything other than that that sentence suggests "that a single article should be merged into two or more other articles?" If you want to claim I'm wrong, then please tell us, what did Wbm1058's assertion mean? Provide an alternate theory.
How 'bout a compromise? Please comment on this suggestion, which has none of the punctuation or fragment issues you raise: "It has been suggested that X and Y be merged into Z." And on this one: A merging of X and Y into Z is proposed. (Of course, in each case, the letter would be replaced with an intrawiki link to the article, as with the current template.) --50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[]
To clarify my position, I'm open to the possibility of tweaks to the template wording. The current wording more or less works, but it may not be optimal. There are multiple ways of saying the same thing. I see a lot of issues needing fixed elsewhere where the problem is much more clear cut though, many on my to-do list, so this issue is very low priority for me. I'm going to stop watching it, so ping me back if you still would like my input. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[]
Thanks for clarifying. Fair enough. It still seems to me that the current wording of the template doesn't work - that "It has been suggested that this page be merged with Y to Z" sounds very awkward or not grammatical. I'm going to seek an opinion where copyeditors hang out/ from one of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copy_editors these folks. Miniapolis or Ukexpat - is the current wording acceptable English? If so, I'll drop this.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[]

() IMO it's acceptable enough, although clarification of which article was being merged into which would be preferable. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 02:10, 4 November 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: This page and TDS meter be merged into Total dissolved solids. (Discuss) Proposed since October 2019.

That is:

Suggested: 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)[]
----
@50.201.195.170: re: the documentation for {{Merge to}} that needs improvement? If it supports a target= parameter, it's not documented
|target= is only supported in {{merge}}, and its usage is limited. Just 26 uses in the most recent report including TDS meter and Total suspended solids to Total dissolved solids, which is one of 12 targets.
Using multiple unnamed parameters in {{merge to}} is even more limited. The most recent report shows just 5 uses of a second unnamed parameter, and one of those 5, Ruger Bisley, uses a third unnamed parameter. The whole idea that a single article should be merged into two or more other articles seems odd to me. It is tantamount to encouraging the creation of a content fork and it's unclear to me what the distinction is between such a merge and a {{split}}.
Debresser added support for the target parameter to {{merge to}} at 20:57, 16 December 2013. The most recent report shows that this parameter is unused as of the time the report was generated. There was a malformed merge template on the Scott Prouty article {{merge|date=October 2013}} which did not specify the merge partner. Debresser attempted to fix it by specifying the target {{Merge|target=United States presidential election, 2012|date=October 2013}} but this was also malformed: "It has been suggested that this article be merged with to United States presidential election, 2012." which is bad grammar. |target= is for specifying a third-party page into which at least two other articles are proposed to be merged. Sometimes |target= is a red link, as in when two existing articles are merged to create a new, combined article. Debresser then realized that {{Merge to}} was the right template to use and that {{{target}}} should just have been {{{1}}}. Then after adding support for this target parameter made a test edit which may have worked at the time but doesn't currently.
From a related discussion at User talk:Rich Farmbrough:

I added a target parameter to the code of {{Merge to}}, just like we have it in {{Merge}}. I find it confusing that the same parameter we are allowed to use in Merge for indicating the target can not be used in Merge to. I hope you agree that is a good idea?

I wanted to ask you the following. In Merge and Merge to, {{Merge partner}} passes on only the parameter {{{1|}}}. I think that in Merge to this could also be the target parameter. Do you agree? In that case, should the code be {{{1|target}}}? I agree that the word partner was initially meant to mean two articles merging together, but in the case of Merge to, the partner is the target (or the target is the partner, perhaps), wouldn't you say? Debresser (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's {{{1|{{{target}}}}}}. I agree with your sentiments I think. Season's greetings, Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC).
Thaks for the fix. Done. Debresser (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
See the related Template:Merge partner and Category:Articles for merging with no partner.
Relevant Debresser edits. It would have been better to have discussed this here first rather than make bold edits and discuss them on one user's talk page.
Over two years passed before someone removed the redundant "into" in that implementation – and the link was still bad syntax.
This edit would make it work by removing the double colon ::if we wanted to support |target= as an alias for |1=. I don't see how that doesn't increase rather than decrease confusion, because in {{merge}} |target= is not an alias for |1=. I intend to remove this poorly and boldly implented parameter whose use was never documented. Making |target= an alias for |1= is also problematic when there may not be only one target. Perhaps there should only be one target, but whether to remove support for |2=, |3=, and up to |20= is a question for another day. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[]

I have a new version in the sandbox ready to go, which I'll make live soon if there are no objections here. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[]

No, I don't think it's ready. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[]
So I haven't addressed your proposal yet. What this change addresses is your comment "If it supports a target= parameter, it's not documented". Yes, as detailed above, it "supports" a target= parameter, and yes, it's not documented. As explained above, rather than document it I am removing it because it was added without any discussion here. What I'm asking is whether there is a reason why I shouldn't remove it. As an incremental change. Your proposal for a "bigger fix" which involves "arguments moving around"... needs further analysis and discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[]

I hear you. I can't see progress:

1. {{Merge|TDS meter|target=Total dissolved solids|date=October 2019|discuss=Talk:TDS_meter}}

to work better; current result not good.


2. {{Merge to|TDS meter|target=Total dissolved solids|date=October 2019|discuss=Talk:TDS_meter}}

work better? Nope.


3. {{Merge to/sandbox|TDS meter|target=Total dissolved solids|date=October 2019|discuss=Talk:TDS_meter}}

work better? Nope. Different. Your change has side effects. I guess I could try to improve the sandbox versions. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[]

You wrote earlier:

The whole idea that a single article should be merged into two or more other articles seems odd to me.

Me too; the result at the top of this section (of {{Merge to|Total dissolved solids|TDS meter|date=October 2019|discuss=Talk:TDS_meter}}) is not good. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[]


I demonstrated correct usage at Total suspended solids:

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

This is exactly the same as your example 1 above. There is structurally nothing wrong with this, correct? I understand you want to tweak the text per #Proposed wording improvement (to Merge) but there is no problem with this syntax and the template wording can be changed without changing the syntax.

Your examples 2 and 3 are using bad syntax. |target= is not supported in {{Merge to}}. The template could be enhanced to report {{error}}s when unrecognized parameters are used or when required parameters are missing. You cannot use {{Merge to}} to get your desired result for this use case. You must use {{Merge}} instead. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Other page is involved page or destination page?Edit

So I found the liberal use of "other page," "otherpage2," etc. to be really confusing and am trying to substitute SourcePage and DestinationPage where appropriate (what I have so far is over on my sandbox). However, I'm running into what looks like conflicting definitions for the basic template:

  • To merge at least two articles together at an unspecified location, use {{Merge|OtherPage}}

= you want to merge the tagged page, OtherPage, and possibly more pages, but you don't know which will merge with which, or whether you'll make a new page

but towards the bottom of the page, under the merge template:

Other page: "This is the page into which this article should be merged. Note: 19 additional pages to merge can be added manually as optional parameters."

= other page is the destination page, not just another page involved in the merger

Is one of these definitions in error, or am I missing something?

Fredlesaltique (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[]

I agree that that's an error in the documentation; that "This is the page into which this article should be merged" should be sometime like "Another page with which this article should be merged". Klbrain (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Klbrain: Ah ok that's what I thought. Thanks, Fredlesaltique (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Template-protected edit request on 2 March 2021Edit

The template doesn't display correctly when used without parameters. Use {{#if: {{{1|}}}|{{pagelist|...}}|something that has not been specified. If you are the editor who added this template, please specify.}} to mitigate this problem.

Also, add {{#if:{{{reason|}}}|Reason: ''{{{reason}}}''}}. JsfasdF252 (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[]

  Done Elli (talk | contribs) 01:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[]
I thought this edit request would be rejected because the message to display when no target page was specified would be too long. Would it be better if the template displayed "It is proposed that this page be merged with another page" in this case? JsfasdF252 (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[]
JsfasdF252 would you like me to change it? and why did you make an edit request you expected to be rejected? Elli (talk | contribs) 06:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, but is it even allowed to tag a page to be merged while the target page is unknown? JsfasdF252 (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[]
JsfasdF252, it happens. Usually it's a bad idea but sometimes when there are a lot of articles on one subject and you are uncertain how to handle them all it can be acceptable with a good explanation on the talk page. --Trialpears (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[]
Anyway, there is no particular request here so I'm marking this as resolved. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[]
Return to "Merge" page.