Template talk:Merge/Archive 1

using as a parameter
I thought it would be nice to use as a parameter. It would contain the name of the page that the referring page should be merged with. Sadly, it would mean changing around the message on all pages presently for merge. Does anyone have a suggestion how we could implement this change? JFW | T@lk  17:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you've said and propose this new version:


 * Perhaps the second line could do with a little work (maybe linking to an article on how to change it to the dispute template. As for converting all the existing ones then either it'll take few people ages to do it manually or a bot could be used. violet/riga (t) 17:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * A simpler way to do the transition is to add a new template, . The new template could then be phased in gradually (by being used by new merges). cesarb 03:44, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template style
This is not a talk page template, and should therefore not be styled like one. Since it goes in the article space, it should be as simple as possible, and I've restored it to a short, italicized note. &mdash; Dan | Talk 02:25, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Many article templates are styled in this manner, but I don't care one way or the other. I do, however, care about the wording. Your version declares an opinion as fact, and fails to direct users to the talk page for relevant discussion.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 03:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I wish people would stop altering this template back and forth an actually discuss here how it should look. As a frequent user of this template I think a colourful boxed tag is important; it is much more like vandalism which encourages people to address the issue rather then ignore it.  When the tag is simply itallic text it seems to be regarded as For other people with this name... and instead of treating divided info as a cleanup issue of immediate concern they treat it as a see also.  MeltBanana 12:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Your point is valid.  I'm torn on the issue (and have remained neutral), because I also see how the smaller version could be desirable (especially for use in specific sections).  Perhaps a compromise could be reached.  I suggest that proposed designs be posted here (instead of being introduced directly into the actual template).  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 12:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is what I think is the better of the previous notices:

We could easily lose the little graphic and maybe some of the emboldening but I think a funky box is important to draw attention to a problem. Cleanup has a box and I believe that merging is perhaps a bigger problem then cleanup. Having information spread incorrectly or inappropriately around divides effort unnecessarily and is often worse then untidy single articles.


 * I was thinking of something along the lines of the following:


 * &mdash;Lifeisunfair 14:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Here are the corresponding mergefrom & mergeto designs:


 * &mdash;Lifeisunfair 16:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Hopefully I'll have the time to set up a WP:TS for non-talk page templates soon. violet/riga (t) 16:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If I may interject my two cents, I believe that colored boxes should be avoided if at all possible in the article space. They're a distraction, and are quite meaningless to most readers (and readers, not editors, are our intended audience). Messages for editors, when necessary, should be kept short and to the point. Incidentally, I don't much care for the "It has been proposed" contruction, since it's vague and awkward, but I can't think of a better one. Anybody have any ideas? &mdash; Dan | Talk 18:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Back before I began editing, I always thought that a colored box was less distracting, because it clearly stood apart from (and therefore couldn't be confused with) the article's text.


 * I like the "it has been proposed" wording (which is to be expected, given that I authored it), but I'm open to suggestions. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 18:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How about:


 * It's a bit mealy mouthed but it gets away from proposed which it often isn't when the tag is just slapped on. "should be considered" could be altered to "may be desirable" MeltBanana 19:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I like "may be desirable," because it's more neutral.


 * Incidentally, what do you think of the new icons (which I created today)? &mdash;Lifeisunfair 19:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Pretty, I can merge but I can't do art. MeltBanana 19:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll give these templates a try. If nothing else, they're somewhere in between the two extremes. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 00:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I can see where you are coming from with that colour, a mix of red and blue, but it makes me feel pukey. MeltBanana 20:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about that. The "mix of red and blue" was a consideration, but I mainly wanted to:


 * get away from the talk page colour scheme
 * use something similar (but not identical) to the cleanup colour scheme
 * establish a distinctive, uniform colour scheme for all of the merge tags (including mergefrom, mergeto, merging and mergedisputed) that differs from the ones already used in other article tags


 * I'm open to alternate colour suggestions, hopefully meeting as many of the above criteria as possible. Perhaps a slightly different shade?  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 20:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just ran across the new merge templates, and I think they're great. Much better than the last version I saw (no box, too big.bold). Just thought I'd let you know :) And I agree that the colored box is better than no box/not colored box. It makes it more obvious that it's not part of the article contect, and idle readers can breeze right past it (or it can pique their curiousity and turn them into wonderful editors :) ) Lachatdelarue (talk) 01:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Merge, mergeto, and mergefrom are much better handled as relatively plain text, since they are not urgent and are more day-to-day tags. The colored box "merging" template is fine, being similar to inuse. The colored box mergedisputed tag is also fine, since dispute tags generally are there to get extra attention. -- Netoholic @ 13:59, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)


 * Do you remember when you claimed that I'm unwilling to compromise? This design is a compromise between the version that you prefer and the large, colored boxes that others prefer.  And why did you also revert to the POV wording?  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 14:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You're colored box style been reverted by two people. Your wording has been reverted by four people. I suggest you re-evaluate whether your version is a compromise at all. -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)


 * Huh?! You're the first and only person to revert this design and wording (both of which are compromises that were arrived at through discussion on this page).  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 18:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Dan's concerns above seem to have been ignored. He and I agree that the simple italic text version is better (and he reverted you as well).  I don't see compromise here. At best, I see an impatient push towards a version which very few have talked about. -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 14:27 (UTC)


 * No one's concerns have been ignored. You don't understand what's happened.


 * The colored box to which Dan originally objected was large and used the talk page color scheme. This is what some users preferred, while others preferred the much smaller version that you favor.  As a result, they were reverting back and forth between the two extremes, with my unrelated wording changes (which no one complained about) caught up in the mix.


 * Finally, I designed a compromise version (which eventually became even smaller, under many text sizes). It's larger than one version, but only half the size (or less, depending upon the text size) of the other.  It incorporates color, but not that of the traditional talk page templates (to avoid confusion).  MeltBanana suggested some alternative wording (which also falls somewhere in between the two extremes and addresses Dan's concern), and I implemented it.


 * The edit war appeared to have been resolved with via a mutually acceptable (or at least tolerable) compromise, and then you showed up, ignored the above proceedings (which you still fail to accurately comprehend), and declared that your preferred version should prevail. Thus far, you're the first and only person to complain about the compromise version (aside from MeltBanana's peripheral dislike of the specific color choice), let alone revert it.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 28 June 2005 16:49 (UTC)


 * Insulting, as always. I do not "fail to comprehend" anything.  I dislike colored boxes on articles except for important disputes. Merge notices need not be so outrageous.  What you think is compromise is intolerable.  I see nothing wrong with trying to innovate, but then I see nothing beneficial in your changes.  The old version does the job without offending my eyes. -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 17:21 (UTC)


 * I didn't intend to insult you, and I apologize. You did, however, fail to comprehend (not a reference to your level of intelligence) the nature of the discussion.  You claimed that Dan's concerns had been ignored, which they were not.  (None of his comments pertained to this compromise version, which addresses his concerns.)


 * You also repeatedly claimed that my design had been reverted by others, and this is false. You're the first and only person to revert it.


 * I'm sorry that it offends your eyes, but your opinion is not the only one that matters. I also don't understand why you oppose the NPOV wording (to which no one else has objected).  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 28 June 2005 17:49 (UTC)


 * Dan said "I believe that colored boxes should be avoided if at all possible in the article space." That is a clear enough indication to me that he and I agree that simple text is best.  It doesn't really matter that he didn't reply after your "compromise" version.  Your version still conflicts with his view and mine.  Onle {(mergedisputed}} needs to have wording indicating a conflict.  On the other templates, they should be worded as definite, to encourage editors to boldly move forward.  Your wording is so wishy-washy, noone would want to perform the merger.  If there is doubt about whether a merger is needed, REMOVE THE TEMPLATE and discuss on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 17:54 (UTC)


 * The fact that Dan hasn't complained about the compromise version (let alone reverted it, as you previously claimed) does matter.  Furthermore, several people have expressed preferences for a colored box (even when it was more than twice the size of this one).


 * My wording avoids stating an opinion as fact (and people should be cautious about potential mergers) and invites talk page discussion (a change that predates my involvement in this template). No one other than you has expressed disapproval.


 * My design is a thorough compromise, but you'll settle for nothing short of your way. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 28 June 2005 18:33 (UTC)

Sorry about having ignored this discussion – I had no idea it had become so heated. Life, I'm afraid I can't see your compromise as much of a compromise, since it's still a colored box, and is no closer to the simple italicized text which I suggested. Merging is not the most urgent of cleanup tasks, and I see no need to draw such great attention to it. As for the wording, I've considered the various revised and "neutral" versions, but I still prefer the short and to-the-point "This article should be merged with X." The use of this template implies that the merge is undisputed, so there's no need to suggest that there might be a dispute. If such a dispute exists, we've already got Template:Mergedisputed. &mdash; Dan | Talk 30 June 2005 01:54 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your polite reply, Dan. :-)


 * "Life, I'm afraid I can't see your compromise as much of a compromise, since it's still a colored box, and is no closer to the simple italicized text which I suggested."


 * I'm sorry that my design isn't to your liking, but it is a compromise; it's less than half the size of the previous colored box (and is closer to your preferred version in that respect), and I've eliminated the talk page color scheme. (One of your complaints was that it resembled a talk page notice.)


 * "Merging is not the most urgent of cleanup tasks, and I see no need to draw such great attention to it."


 * I can understand why a large box would be inconvenient, but I believe that my design is a reasonable compromise. On the other hand, this really isn't my battle to wage, and I'm more than willing to respect any clear majority.


 * "As for the wording, I've considered the various revised and 'neutral' versions, but I still prefer the short and to-the-point "This article should be merged with X." The use of this template implies that the merge is undisputed, so there's no need to suggest that there might be a dispute."


 * On this issue, I strongly disagree. The presence of this template merely means that one person stuck it there.  A newbie isn't going to realize that, and might simply heed the authoritative wording by proceeding with an ill-advised merger.  (I've witnessed this on several occasions.)  Keep in mind that anyone using this tag is unsure of whether/how to perform the merger.  (Otherwise, he/she would simply do it on his/her own.)  Mergers don't always require discussion, but it's an excellent concept to encourage.  Experienced editors recognize clear-cut cases, and can simply bypass this step.


 * "If such a dispute exists, we've already got Template:Mergedisputed."


 * That's true, but many users might not realize that they're welcome to dispute a merger. If they're simply told that "this article should be merged with X," they might believe that this is an official decision.  The wording that MeltBanana and I devised doesn't imply that there's a dispute, nor does it invite users to speak up only if they disagree with the proposed merger (as previous wording did).  It informs users that they're welcome to express any viewpoint (positive, negative or neutral) and/or post any pertinent questions/comments.


 * I'd like to stress the fact that I sincerely appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter in a calm, considerate manner, despite the fact that you and I disagree. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 03:12 (UTC)


 * Not that I want to get entangled in discussion about this, but I too prefer the simple italicised text. It's not like cleanup, where we do want to make it a bit more obvious that we know there's something wrong and are working on fixing it. Merge isn't something we want to draw attention to, like an editing dispute or a substandard article; it should be unobtrusive. It's not important for readers to be warned of when they are viewing the article. (One hopes the article is it to be merged with is linked at the appropriate place in the text, of course.) Basically, concur with Dan and Netoholic. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 30 June 2005 02:10 (UTC)


 * As I stated in the beginning, I have no strong preference in either direction; my intention was to create a compromise between the two extremes that have been advocated on this page (which appeared to have approximately equal support). If, in actuality, the non-boxed, italic version is preferred by a substantial majority, that's the style that should be used.  Perhaps a request for comment is in order.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 03:12 (UTC)


 * Based on the comments above, I think it best we leave the template style as it was for a long time - simple italic text.  This idea wasn't a bad one, just impatiently fought over a little too hard.  -- Netoholic @ July 1, 2005 14:28 (UTC)


 * The box stays. I don't care about the text but I do think lifeisunfair's text is fine as is. Elfguy 3 July 2005 04:35 (UTC)

mergefrom and mergeto should have different images
I like the new images (and the box), but I think that mergefrom and mergewith should have different images. The purpose of the image is that you don't need to read the template. As it stands they are simply too similar. --MarSch 30 June 2005 12:58 (UTC)


 * They are different and I think they look fine personally. Elfguy 30 June 2005 13:33 (UTC)


 * MarSch: Do you mean that mergefrom and mergeto should have different images than each other? I originally planned this, but I couldn't think of a way to create a distinction that actually represented the disparity.  I could simply reverse the image (by retaining the blue arrow instead of the red one).  That wouldn't really convey the template's concept any differently, but it would be a visible indicator of sorts.  Assuming that the consensus is to use these images, the question then becomes: which template should get the new image? &mdash;Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 14:21 (UTC)


 * yes, I meant mergeto of course. Mergewith is a redirect to merge.--MarSch 30 June 2005 14:23 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't even notice that you typed "mergewith." I was verifying that Elfguy's apparent interpretation was incorrect.  (He cited the fact that mergefrom and mergeto already share a different image than merge, but that isn't what you meant.)  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 14:34 (UTC)


 * Perhaps by making the arrow or the diamond differ in size, we could distinguish, The big diamond might also be a square. --MarSch 30 June 2005 14:37 (UTC)


 * It would be very easy to create a clear difference between the two images, but can we convey "merge from" with one and "merge to" with the other? I don't think so, but a purely arbitrary modification might not be a bad idea.  In my opinion, the most logical design would have a red diamond on the left and a blue arrow on the right (as I originally planned for the alternate image).  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 14:57 (UTC)


 * The article on which the template sits should have a bigger part in the picture. You can quickly see whether it is an arrow (needs to be merged somewhere else) or whether it is a box (should receive info from somewhere). Nothing arbitrary about it. --MarSch 30 June 2005 15:20 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see what you mean! Yes, that would make sense.  Do you care for this attempt?  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 15:54 (UTC)


 * Not really. --MarSch 30 June 2005 17:01 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I feel the same way.


 * I began with this (which I thought looked much better, independent of any particular meaning), but then I read your idea about making the box bigger and the arrow smaller.


 * Perhaps having the red object on the left represent the current content would be sufficient. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 17:38 (UTC)


 * Please put that up temporarily. What I think is that the redness of the arrow signifies that it is somehow an error or bad and should be made to go away. If the diamond is red it loses this significance. But what about a square instead of a diamond. It would be bigger and fit in the same space. --MarSch 30 June 2005 18:04 (UTC)


 * To me, the redness represents emphasis, but not of the negative variety. (It means, "this is what you're looking at now.")


 * I tried the square idea earlier, and I wasn't able to produce satisfactory results. The problem is that it removes the protruding point, thereby countering the size gain and eliminating the semi-symmetrical uniformity that we've maintained thus far.  (You're welcome to try, of course.)  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 18:19 (UTC)

This conversation is moot, since the section above there is no consensus that these template require anything more than simple text. -- Netoholic @ July 1, 2005 14:26 (UTC)

Protected
Either sort it out here and now (possibly with a vote) or wait until the new WP:TS kicks in. violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)


 * There is consensus. Between everone except 1 person who keeps reverting it against everyone else. But whatever. Elfguy 3 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)


 * I concur. Plenty of support has been shown and this is hardly a revert war needing protection. --MarSch 3 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)


 * I see one person who "[doesn't] care one way or the other" (Lifeisunfair), three who favor the box (MeltBanana, MarSch, and yourself), and three who favor the old version (me, Netoholic, and Mindspillage). &mdash; Dan | Talk 3 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)


 * What about:
 * "Looks good to me. Hopefully I'll have the time to set up a WP:TS for non-talk page templates soon. violet/riga (t) 16:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Pretty, I can merge but I can't do art. MeltBanana 19:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)"? --MarSch 3 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)


 * Oops, you already mentioned MeltBanana --MarSch 3 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)


 * However Uncle ed seems to like it and subsequently forked it. Radiant reverted Netoholic once and has stated in other discussions that he likes this sort of thing. Check out template talk:disambig. So that makes it 3 to 6 + Lifeis Unfair who cares so little that he made the pictures. --MarSch 3 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)


 * You can add TenOfAllTrades, grm_wnr and Grutness, all of whom expressed preferences for my version on the templates for deletion page. By the same token, add BlankVerse and Brian0918 to the other side.  And yes, I prefer my version, so the count is 10 to 5 in its favor (thus far). &mdash;Lifeisunfair 3 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)


 * I do care about the wording, and I believe that my visual design is a fair compromise between the small, text-only version and the large, colored version. The fact that colored boxes are used for almost all of the cleanup templates (which recently was brought to my attention) also is a compelling argument. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 3 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)

Oh, whatever. Let's have a vote and finish this dispute. &mdash; Dan | Talk 3 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)


 * Agreed. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 3 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)

clone
I'm putting radiant's version at template:coolmerge. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 01:20 (UTC)

Talk page style
This is not a talk page template, and should therefore not be styled like one. Since it goes in the article space, it should be as simple as possible, and I've restored it to a short, italicized note. &mdash; Dan | Talk 02:29, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Many article templates are styled in this manner, but I don't care one way or the other. I do, however, care about the wording. Your version declares an opinion as fact, and fails to direct users to the talk page for relevant discussion.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 03:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I like it very much --MarSch 30 June 2005 14:27 (UTC)


 * To be clear, while Dan still opposes the use of any colored box, he was referring to an entirely different version of the template, which did resemble a talk page notice. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 14:46 (UTC)

Talk page links
It would be a better idea if the talk page links at Template:Mergeto and Template:Mergefrom were directed to the same talk page (preferrably the one of the article to be merged into the other), so we at least don't encourage discussions taking place at two locations at the same time. Is this technically difficult to accomplish (I haven't worked with templates myself)? -- Jao July 1, 2005 18:59 (UTC)


 * Your idea is highly logical and technically easy to accomplish. I just implemented it.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 2 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)


 * Great! --MarSch 3 July 2005 11:30 (UTC)

Template style
I don't like the in-your-face appearance this template now has. I feel that the simpler small italic note was more suitable. 20:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I like it very much --MarSch 30 June 2005 14:26 (UTC)


 * To be clear, Ril was referring to an entirely different version of the template. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 14:46 (UTC)


 * I think it needs the box and image to be seen as an official notice. I don't mind if it's italics. Elfguy 30 June 2005 14:40 (UTC)


 * When did it become an official notice? Anyone can add that to any article they want. Even the "official" notices, such as the one currently above every page, aren't as "in-your-face". -- brian0918  &#153;  30 June 2005 14:47 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it isn't an "official" notice, and anyone can stick it anywhere. (In fact, I just argued this point last night, in defense of the non-authoritative wording).  Elfguy used an inappropriate term, but I believe that he meant that the box and image distinguish the notice from the text of an article.  Under the other design, I noticed numerous examples in which the notice blended right in with the actual article (due to poor structure, which is common among merger candidates).  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 16:11 (UTC)

Merging and redirecting
Isn't it redundant to say "merging and redirecting" as the process of merging involves creating a redirect from the source? Shouldn't the template just read "Merging this article into may be desirable."? --Canderson7 July 2, 2005 01:54 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't redundant. Redirecting is separate from the actual "merging" (which simply refers to the act of combining one page's content with another).  And of course, we have to assume that the reader is entirely unfamiliar with the process.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 2 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)


 * Yet step 6 of merging two pages is:  In the (now empty) source page, type #redirect PAGENAME" (without the quotes, and pasting the name of the destination page instead of 'PAGENAME' . When a user that is unfamiliar with the proccess looks up "merging" they will see this and act accordingly regardless of whether the template also says "redirecting". --Canderson7 July 2, 2005 12:31 (UTC)


 * It doesn't hurt to be explicit. On the other hand I don't feel very strongly about this.--MarSch 2 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)


 * One point for *not* including the redirect instruction is that the template wording might be changed to include merging a section. A section obviously can't be redirected... so «this article or sections should be merged and redirected» wouldn't make much sense, while «this article or sections should be merged» does. Nabla 2005-07-04 00:06:01 (UTC)

Consistency
In their current protected state, template:merge, template:mergeto, and template:mergefrom are not formatted consistently. Only the first is indented, and is lacking the CSS classes that the other two have applied. Template:merge is indented 1em using a colon; the others are indented 0.5em using style sheets ("class=notice"). Could we reach consensus to harmonize their formatting, without affecting the image debate? —Michael Z. 2005-07-5 18:17 Z 


 * For some reason, violet/riga never protected mergefrom and mergeto (even after I pointed out that they were equally involved in this dispute), so don't be surprised if their appearance fluctuates.


 * In actuality, however, violet/riga violated the protection policy by protecting merge:


 * "Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page)."


 * &mdash;Lifeisunfair 5 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)


 * You have got to be kidding? I did not violate any policy and to suggest I did is both ludicrous and offensive.  violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)


 * I'm not implying that your infraction was deliberate, but the protection policy explicitly prohibits admins from "protect[ing] pages which they have been involved with." &mdash;Lifeisunfair 5 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)


 * But I wasn't involved in it prior to protection, so you can't shout policies at me like that. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you were involved. (You had expressed opinions on the talk page.)  Secondly, I'm not shouting.  I'm calmly stating facts, and I'm not accusing you of any intentional wrongdoing.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 5 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)


 * "Looks good to me" is hardly a contribution, so I have to disagree with you. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how minor (a condition for which the protection policy includes no exclusion, in this context), you expressed an opinion on the talk page. In fact, it directly pertained to the template's design (the subject of the dispute that prompted the protection &mdash; which isn't even a criterion).


 * Furthermore, you played a substantial role in the original discussion that helped to shape the aforementioned design. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 5 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)


 * Shame that we disagree again. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)


 * Which of my above statements is/are inaccurate? &mdash;Lifeisunfair 5 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)


 * I really don't want to be continually discussing things at this template. You and I clearly disagree with how to interpret the English language, suffice to say I disagree with your statements, view of the protection policy and view of my contributions to this talk page.  violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)

Does anyone object to adding  to template:merge, to make it consistent with the others? This is technically better than removing that code from the others and replacing it with a colon. —Michael Z. 2005-07-5 19:34 Z 


 * I see no harm in this, and please protect mergefrom, mergeto and split in this state (pending the voting outcomes). &mdash;Lifeisunfair 5 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)


 * I'll protect the others now, and update template:merge later today, if no-one objects. —Michael Z. 2005-07-5 19:49 Z 


 * Please also protect split (which should use the same format as the aforementioned "merge" templates, irrespective of which format eventually prevails in the voting). &mdash;Lifeisunfair 5 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)


 * Protection isn't necessary if all parties can agree to stop mindlessly reverting. For my part, I'll be happy when the templates were all setup per Michael and would not see a need to edit them. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)


 * You've reverted these templates more than anyone else has! Of course you "would not see a need to edit" the design that you prefer.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 5 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)


 * Isn't that the same version you prefer, as mentioned above where you said you "see no harm in this"? -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't the version that I prefer, but I agree that these templates should be kept consistent with one another and protected against edit warring (pending the voting outcomes). &mdash;Lifeisunfair 5 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)


 * I dunno if you've looked, but the voting is not establishing anything and the issues are even more convoluted than before. Can't say I didn't warn you when I pointed out that you ignored the suggestions on Survey guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)


 * The voting is far from complete, and I don't know what sort of results you expect/demand. (100% unanimous replies?)


 * I didn't ignore the guidelines (despite the fact that I didn't follow all of this optionally heeded advice to the letter), and you've yet explain how the setup (as it currently stands) has been improperly devised (aside from the addition of wordings "C" through "E," in which I had no involvement). &mdash;Lifeisunfair 5 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)

Template:Coolmerge
This version,, was forked off as template:coolmerge, which was subsequently put on VFD (as a fork). Votes were roughly tied between 'delete' and 'merge back'. See Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/July 2005 for details.

This debate really needs deciding soon. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 7, 2005 09:43 (UTC)

Group merges
It occurs to me that the existign tempaltes do not seem to handle group merges very well. Specifically, I recently proposed a merge inot The Wheel of Time from the articles (largely stubs) about the individual books in the series. (I had previously done such a merge without discussion, but another editor objected and reverted the merge.) I started to put undefined on the various pages i proposed merging, but that template has its discuss link pointing to the talk page of the source article. In this case I wanted to encourage a single central discussion, and the obvious place was the talk page of the proposed destination article. So i used subst on mergeto and edited the link, as you can see by lookink at the pages linked to from The Wheel of Time. But is such a case common enough to deserve a separate template for it -- that is the case where it is proposed that several articels be merged into a single existing destination (such as a series or umbrella article) and the discuss link should logically point to the talk page of that article? DES 17:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Very uncommon situation. Your "manual" solution works fine, no need for Yet Another merge template, when there are already too many. -- Netoholic @ 17:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It may become more common. The fictional series project seems likely to advocate such merges as a general practice when many of the articles on individual books are stubs. I have now done four such merges, and expect to do more. DES 17:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You raise an excellent point, DES. The mergefrom and mergeto templates both link to the same talk page as a means of encouraging unified discussion.  The person who suggested this indicated a slight preference for the talk page of the proposed source article, because it's in danger of deletion.  (Therefore, its readers might deem the issue more urgent.)  The type of situation that you've cited, however, is considerably more compelling.  The clear solution is not to create a series of "group merge" templates, but to simply swap some code between mergefrom and mergeto, thereby linking to the proposed destination article.  I've taken care of this, and you can observe the result.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 17:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please note that in the specific case at hand, there is already a section on the talk page where discussion of this merge is inprogress. My manually inserted code made a direct link to this section. What you have done does not. And it may well be that in the case of a simple merge of one article into another (still a common case) the discussion on the proposed source page works better -- in any case I'm note sure this case is a good reason to change the tempaltes for all cases. If you are merely sugesting manual editing in such cases, then the direct section link is probably better. DES 18:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 1. The templates don't include a means of linking to a specific section of a talk page, and there's no easy way to change this. Surely, you don't advocate abandoning the templates in favor of manual substitutions.  Do you?


 * 2. In an ordinary two-article case, it doesn't really matter where the discussion takes place. There's nothing to stop people from posting to whichever talk page(s) they please, but the idea is to encourage unification.  Now that I think about it, a link to the proposed destination page actually makes more sense (because it's more likely to draw discussion).


 * &mdash;Lifeisunfair 18:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * My main point was that having manually created the section link, it was not an improvement to remove it, just to retore direct use of the template. As to your point 1, a group merge template could certianly include a "section=" parameter which would create a section link if it were filled in. I don't see anything hard about that. Alternatively it could simply hard-code a section name such as "Proposed merge", but this is probably a poorer idea. Even a two-article merge template could add a parameter for a talk page section. As to your point 2, I don't have strong feelings about where the two-article merge case should be discussed (or rather where the link should encourage discussion -- nobody ever has to discuss a merge, and as you say people can always choose to discuss whereever they like -- in many cases, though, a link suggestion is likely to be followed). My point was that an existing consensus should not be changed just to accomodate the group merge case. I am not clear just how strong the existing consensus is, however. DES 20:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "My main point was that having manually created the section link, it was not an improvement to remove it, just to retore direct use of the template."


 * I inserted the template to demonstrate its newly modified code. I didn't notice that you had linked to a specific talk page section (which was entirely unrelated to the actual reason behind your substitution).  I understand why you threw that in, but nothing about this proposed merger warrants special code.


 * "As to your point 1, a group merge template could certianly include a "section=" parameter which would create a section link if it were filled in. I don't see anything hard about that."


 * The need (or lack thereof) for a link to a specific talk page section has absolutely nothing to do with how many pages are involved in the proposed merger.


 * "Alternatively it could simply hard-code a section name such as "Proposed merge", but this is probably a poorer idea."


 * This crossed my mind earlier, but it probably would cause confusion than anything else.


 * "Even a two-article merge template could add a parameter for a talk page section."


 * Yes, but the tiny benefit wouldn't remotely justify the extraordinary inconvenience and inherent problems. If the parameter could be made optional (meaning that the link wouldn't be broken if no section were specified), there would be no harm, but I don't believe that this is possible.  (Please correct me if I'm mistaken.)


 * "As to your point 2, I don't have strong feelings about where the two-article merge case should be discussed (or rather where the link should encourage discussion -- nobody ever has to discuss a merge,"


 * . . . which is one of the reasons why setting up the templates to establish a specific talk page section (whether automatically assigned or manually inserted) is illogical.


 * "and as you say people can always choose to discuss whereever they like -- in many cases, though, a link suggestion is likely to be followed). My point was that an existing consensus should not be changed just to accomodate the group merge case. I am not clear just how strong the existing consensus is, however."


 * Someone suggested that the mergefrom and mergeto templates should link to the same talk page, and I implemented this idea. That was the full extent of the discussion.  And as I said, the current setup actually makes more sense (irrespective of the existence of multi-article mergers).  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 22:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "I inserted the template to demonstrate its newly modified code. I didn't notice that you had linked to a specific talk page section (which was entirely unrelated to the actual reason behind your substitution).  I understand why you threw that in, but nothing about this proposed merger warrants special code."


 * Actually my use of the specific section was a significant part of the reason I did the subst -- i did it to customize the destination of the discussion link, to point to the place where discussion was already in progress. I subst'd the mergeto because it pointed to the wrong page, but also so it would point to the specific correct section. You say "nothing about this proposed merger warrants special code". Do I understand you to say that using subst is an improper way to customize such messge tempaltes without generatign dozens of special case templates?


 * "The need (or lack thereof) for a link to a specific talk page section has absolutely nothing to do with how many pages are involved in the proposed merger."


 * Well it might be more important in a complex merge, such as might arise from a group merge, but logically you are correct, the issues are orthogonal.


 * "If the parameter could be made optional (meaning that the link wouldn't be broken if no section were specified), there would be no harm, but I don't believe that this is possible. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken.)"


 * A lionk that ends in a trailing #, thit is a section link with no section specified, works perfectly well, and links to the page normally.


 * ". . . which is one of the reasons why setting up the templates to establish a specific talk page section (whether automatically assigned or manually inserted) is illogical."


 * But in this case, where discussion is already in progress, point to that discussion is highly logical. Also If a merge proposeer first creates a section on a relevant talk page ehere s/he gives arguements for the merge, then uses tempaltes to provide a link to that section for further discussion this seems highly logical and useful behavior to me. DES 22:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "I subst'd the mergeto because it pointed to the wrong page, but also so it would point to the specific correct section."


 * The former reason was valid (at the time), but the latter (of which you made no mention in your original explanation) was not. The templates exist to provide a means of duplicating the information contained therein in the most convenient manner possible &mdash; both for the original proponent and for others (some of whom might have cause to remove or replace a message).  This is accomplished via consistency.


 * "You say "nothing about this proposed merger warrants special code". Do I understand you to say that using subst is an improper way to customize such messge tempaltes without generatign dozens of special case templates?"


 * I'm saying that it's illogical and counterproductive to use customized code (instead of an existing template) for the purpose of attaining such a modest gain.


 * "A lionk that ends in a trailing #, thit is a section link with no section specified, works perfectly well, and links to the page normally."


 * Yes, but such a link is not what would be displayed. The presence of an unused parameter breaks the link &mdash; any link &mdash; entirely.  In its place appears something along the lines of the following:


 * Discuss


 * "But in this case, where discussion is already in progress, point to that discussion is highly logical. Also If a merge proposeer first creates a section on a relevant talk page ehere s/he gives arguements for the merge, then uses tempaltes to provide a link to that section for further discussion this seems highly logical and useful behavior to me."


 * Sure, but this minor benefit is significantly outweighed by the aforementioned problems. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 00:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't use templates for everything (this may be a red link now, but someday I'll write it) -- Netoholic @ 18:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Note that I started this section by asking if others thought a specific tempalte was a good idea. i haven't created one, and i am not arguing for one. I think there are some reasons to suggest creating one, and I wanted to make those clear. There are also reasons for not doing so, and I am by no means convinced that a new template is the optimal solution. DES 20:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the easiest way to indicate a group merge would be to put a 'mergefrom' on the destination page, and modify that. Generally the subarticles are stubs, so the main article would be a more heavily visited place. Alternatively, there may be some use for the idea (and possibly template) of 'merge all stubs in this category to ' Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Effect of current template structure
The current tempalte includes the square brackets, so one need only enter as the parameter the name of the article involved, not a complete link. However, this can cause a problem when, in a gorup merge, one wants to enter multiple article links in the parameter. i just propsoed a merge and used mergefrom at Aubrey-Maturin series. I had to leave off the opening brackets on the inital link, and the closing brackets on the final link in the template call. this looks rather odd in teh wiki code. Maybe I should have used subst again, but I didn't -- in part because Lifeisunfair had changed the template after my previous comments on a group merge, and suggested that it would now work as it stood in such cases. Mind you i am not suggesting that the templae be changed just to accomdate this case, i am merely noting the current situation for those who might make a similar use of mergefrom in future. DES 15:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You handled the situation correctly (just as I did in my example). &mdash;Lifeisunfair 16:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine. But it should probably be mentioned in the template documentation, if we are to endorse this template for group merges. DES 19:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Would you like to do the honors, or should I?  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 19:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Where is the usage documentation page for these templates, anyway. Each of their discussuon tabs seems to link to this page -- i didn't know you could do that. And this page doesn't have any usage documentation on it, except as contained in the various debates. DES 19:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The documentation is located at Template messages/Merging and splitting. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 21:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Changes made. DES 21:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)