Template talk:R from merge

Unprintworthiness
There's been a small revert war going on at Redirect. The question that is relevant here: should merged links be unprintworthy? It seems that many in Category:Redirects from merges are fairly reasonable alternatives.
 * --William Allen Simpson 14:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


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

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


 * I agree. That seems pretty silly to me. It is rarely seen by anybody other than the creator of the redirect. It needs fixing. Gene Nygaard 13:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


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

Overstating the case re "only text remaining"
The template-page instructions says the only text remaining on the page should be:
 * 1) REDIRECT New title

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

Other maintenance templates might be another possibility as well. Gene Nygaard 13:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What you say makes sense. It is in fact mentioned here.  However template tags (such as this one) will not be properly seen unless the page is edited (see my comment in the section above).  --Stux 17:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Template and the GFDL
In order to get the GFDL to work on wikipedia we have to treat individual articles as individual documents in terms of the GFDL. The from of merge this template advocates creates obvious problems with this. Geni 22:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what you mean by saying that this kind of merge violates GFDL. If merging separate articles violates GFDL, then all merges have been violating GFDL. BTW I don't think each article is separately licensed as GFDL, but rather the entirety of wikipedia is probably considered a single body of work. --Stux 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)history merges are fine with the GFDL 2)there is no meaningful way to treat wikipedia as a single document under the GFDL without produceing quite an interesting set of violations. See the various mailing list discussions.Geni 22:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which mailing list discussions? Please be specific ... I (like most editors, I believe) have never consulted the mailing lists and so know nothing about where their archives exist. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Gets covered quite a bit in this thread.Geni 01:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't there something about mailing list discussions having no relevance here? Gene Nygaard 18:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

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


 * I've just used this template, and I don't understand the purpose of the warning either. From the looks of the discussion above, it seems that there is no consensus over whether this type of merger violates Wikipedia's GFDL license or not. Therefore, unless someone can explain clearly and conclusively why it is not acceptable, I will continue to use it. Terraxos 20:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am also confused. I see this warning not to do something. But I can't figure out what exactly it's asking me not to do. More importantly, what is the right way to handle mergers? I wish it linked to a more detailed policy or guideline or at least an individual's rant. Perhaps a link to Help:Merging and moving pages or Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Merge and delete (the "project page" corresponding to this "talk page" does not exist today), or a link to the specific sub-section that deals with whatever it is that this warning is about. --70.130.44.41 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The correct method is to perform a history merge.Geni 20:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your being the only person here advocating this change is not very reassuring, Geni. It is beginning to appear that you are speaking from a lone personal style standpoint rather than speaking from the position of a decided point of policy. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The GFDL is policy. At present there is no way to get the GFDL to work if we treat the whole of wikipedia as a single document. It sort of works if we treat each article and related history page as a single document but that means that a merge has to be a full history merge (it also creates issues with trying to split articles in that it is posible to argue that there is currently no legit way to do this useing the current version of mediawiki).Geni 23:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But you are not the official interpreter of any policy. I'm taking the warning off.  Gene Nygaard 00:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps more to the point, we do have guidelines at Help:Merging and moving pages. If you want to push your interpretation as the proper one, that is exactly where you need to make your case.  Not by slapping a warning on this template.  Gene Nygaard 00:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * interleaved comment This page might also be relevant: How to fix cut-and-paste moves --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Policy trumps guidelines. As I said you are free to try and show how the GFDL allows your actions. If you cannot basic interlectal integrity should force you to withdraw your objections.Geni 11:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To put "policy trumps guidelines" in a more constructive way one can say "Guidelines must abide by policy". If the guidelines that Gene has referred to are in conflict with policy, then he is right to refer you there to provide expert input into appropriate revisions of the guideline.  The fact that the phrase "interlectical integrity" might be difficult to understand not only for me but also for others here is perhaps an indicator that you are not directing persuasive arguments to the correct group of editors.  We are not in any way opposed to abiding by policy; the fact is that policy is not immune to interpretation and the fact that the present template (and guideline) is as it is indicates that the interpretation might well have changed over time.  Please go to the guideline to present arguments; this template and others are artifacts that rely upon the appropriate interpretation of policy and guideline.  To ramble on a bit more, discussing here is like relating your opposition to a company's direction by persuading the administrative assistant at the front door. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 13:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit made to this protected template
Just an FYI, I made what I feel was an uncontroversial edit to the template, removing the category intended for the target pages from the template page itself. Let me know here or on my talk page if someone objects and I'll revert. Protonk (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected request
To add:

Category:Templates for redirects resulting from merges or moves

-- OlEnglish (Talk) 23:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete vs. remove
If i'm being overly diligent about distinctions (such as this one between deleting a page -- pursuant to XfD, ProD, or CSD -- and removing its contents, which has been ignored for nearly 3 years), it probably would not be my first time. But this one's potential consequences are more important than most. After saying, in the example of the included text,
 * Please do not remove this tag (unless the need to recreate this article is demonstrated), or delete this page.

(and carefully distinguishing removal of the tag vs. deletion of the page) it presently continues with
 * as the last significant thought, with substantially greater emphasis, with strong emphasis on the verb but none on its object, and as the only information (let alone imperative) actually addressed to the user of the template,
 * Note to editors: when merging a page, please delete the text of the page on which you are placing this template; the only text remaining on the page should be:

My rewrite (besides some lesser changes, also for precision) replaces
 * delete the text of the page on which you are placing this template; the only text remaining on the page should be...

with
 * replace the entire markup in its edit pane (in a page, not section, edit), so the entire markup saved is...

--Jerzy•t 04:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Categorization
This doesn't seem to be categorized in Category:All redirect templates (note the "All") for some reason. Please add the category if appropriate, or explain if not.

For comparison, note that redirects to this template and is so categorized. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that all of those (which are not themselves redirs) that are in are because the template is built around .  isn't. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. I've added the category. Actually, this only required an edit to the /doc subpage, which is unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Target
ISTM that a merge target is needed, since the redirect target can be changed. I suggest a "to" parameter. I just made such a change on Devil Worship, though this has no CCBYSA relevant history, so the tag has been wrong for seven years. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC).


 * This is supported by the first unnamed parameter. It has been present since the template's, although it was undocumented and . It was . Edits earlier this month and . Flatscan (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Many thanks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

"For more information, see the category."
What category? Looking at a page that uses this template (eg. Android Market), the page has no categories. Does it mean the Category:Redirects from merges linked earlier in the paragraph? --McGeddon (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, McGeddon – sorry it took so long for a response. Yes, in this case the word "merged" (tenth word in the first sentence) was linked to the category.  I have updated that redirect, so now the category link will be the first words of the text, "From a merge".  Hope this helps.  Joys! –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 18:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Also should mention the fact that most of these categories are "hidden" at the bottom of the pages. Go to this page to find out how to see those hidden cats. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 18:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 August 2015
All pages that use this template should be fully protected. Also, disable deletion of pages using this template as well as Twinkle's XFD module on such pages.

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why? Alakzi (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Template editors cannot protect pages; please post your request somewhere else, such as WP:RFPP or WP:AN. You'd probably need a consensus (or at least some good reasons) for such mass protections to be carried out. I am unaware of a method to technically protect pages from deletion; only admins can delete, and they are unlikely to delete any page without reason to. SiBr4 (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought that the Main Page was technically protected from deletion A8v (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never read that anywhere, but I don't understand why it is important? Only administrators can delete pages, and even if some rogue admin did delete the Main Page, it is so closely watched that another admin would have it back online within seconds.  Joys! – Painius  14:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is; see Don't delete the main page. The Main Page of a wiki cannot be deleted; neither can any page with over 5000 revisions. What I meant was that there is probably no such thing as "deletion protection" that can be applied to individual articles. SiBr4 (talk ) 14:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

For redirects with substantive(?) page histories
Should it not be "For redirects with substantial page histories"? (please keep in mind, I'm German ;-) --Manorainjan (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * welcome to the en Wikipedia! Please see substantive, which shows that "substantive" means substantial (having substance) and includes the additional meaning of "essential". So the page history is expected to have "essential substance".  It appears that whichever editor who years ago chose "substantive" over "substantial" was pretty much spot on.  Thank you for your contributions!   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  02:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 April 2018
Please change the text: to:  Or is more commonly used, and either/or (vs. neither/nor) is implied in the existing wording: "Please do not (either) remove the tag", etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 03:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think "nor" is perfectly correct here, but we can wait for another opinion &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. See this Cambridge Dictionary page, specifically the second example under "Not with neither and nor", or this Grammar Girl post]. If the second part is a verb phrase, anywhere you can use "and not" you can also use "nor". If the sentence were "Please do not delete the tag nor the page" you would be correct in replacing the "nor" with "or", but in this case both "nor" and "or" are okay. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * I see. Makes sense. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I changed it to "or" (without having first seen this discussion). Wikiacc (¶) 07:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 April 2021
Please change  to. 54nd60x (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * why? Doesn't the link work okay just like it is?  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 22:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see Template talk:No article text/Archive 1. To my understanding, the fullurl was used as a workaround when it was not possible to directly link to edit forms. Now that it is possible to directly link to edit forms, Special:EditPage or Special:Edit should be used instead. 54nd60x (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * and ✅, thank you for your explanation and patience!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 19:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 January 2022
Minor: please clarify link per MOS:LINKCLARITY

from:

"this page's edit history"

to:

"this page's edit history"

To avoid confusion with WP:edit history.

— W.andrea (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, and made this edit to other similar templates as well.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 13:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)