Template talk:Merge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Template:Merge has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit. |
[edit] Heading section
- The high-risk template protection has only been applied to
- Merge , Mergeto, and Mergefrom not the other merge templates.
|
|
This talk page is for the discussion of the following pages:
- Template:Merge
- Template:Mergeto
- Template:Mergefrom
- Template:Mergefrom-multiple
- Template:Mergesection
- Template:Mergesections
- Template:Merging
Please be clear in your comments which template you are referring to.
|
[edit] Template for deletion
I honestly don't understand why the {{merge}} template exists. It could easily be superseded by {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}}, both of which direct merge discussions to a specific talk page, easing the process and allowing consensus to be reached much faster. This template could be changed to guide users to use one or the other. I was just about to place {{tfd|merge}} onto this page, but it's protected. If anyone with more power than me agrees, could you please comment here or finish what I can't? Thankyou :) Jack · talk · 13:46, Sunday, 25 February 2007
- To use {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} is to say that article A should be merged into B (as opposed to merging B into A), i.e. it gives the two articles different "status", which is not always what we want to do. Brian Jason Drake 03:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Further to my previous comment , see #Reverse merger proposals above. Brian Jason Drake 03:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's far simpler than that... it's a tool some are comfortable with, and who are you to steal a tool from a person's toolbox, costing them time and effort to learn something new, when the outcome is identical. Have the stuff proposed at TFD shouldn't be as it's impolite to ask others such things, and it's hardly an imposition on the systems memory to keep an template around that someone (anyone) finds useful. The biggest problem with most tool templates is that they aren't well documented and easy for laypeople to understand those which are documented. That's what WP:TSP is aimed at fixing. Best regards // FrankB 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Special characters
Not sure where the appropriate place to put this is, but I found the following line in Mass-energy equivalence, which obviously doesn't render very well:
{{Merge|E%3Dmc%C2%B2|date=February 2007|Talk:E%3Dmc%C2%B2#Merge_with_Mass-energy_equivalence}}
Is this correct usage of this template?
Brian Jason Drake 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- "E%3Dmc%C2%B2" is because the Help:Magic words used are full url friendly vice people friendly. See the magic word forms with the double 'EE' suffixes. It is however, no problem, save for the strangeness to look at as the links work. Looks like a consensus exists to merge those two pages now, if someone has time and is into physics or science. Best regards // FrankB 20:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sort adjustment
Please remove the {{PAGENAME}} variable from the categories as we now have the {{DEFAULTSORT}} to take care of it on article pages. I'd also like to request that {{DEFAULTSORT:Merge To}} be added in the noinclude section of the template as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I understand it, defaultsort sets a default sort key and is appropriate for articles like Paul Cohen (mathematician), which is often alphabetized under C. This is perfect for homogeneous categories like Category:Mathematicians. But in heterogeneous maintenance categories like these, it is the actual ASCII name of the page that is of interest; I wouldn't expect to have the category sorted by last name because not all articles are about people. So I would expect Paul Cohen's article to be sorted under P.
- So, if anything, I would like to see the opposite: we should explicitly override defaultsort for maintenance categories to make it easier to find pages in the list. I believe that this is currently what the PAGENAME variables are doing. CMummert · talk 20:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- {{editprotected}}. I'm removing this for now; if it becomes clear that there is consensus to change the template, please add another one and I will be glad to make the changes. CMummert · talk 18:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] One documentation for all of these templates
I think there should be a centralized doc at Template:Merge/doc that covers all usage. It's inefficient to have to duplicate every edit across the different /docs. If this is a good idea, please edit the templates to transclude {{Merge/doc}} instead of {{/doc}}. I'll add sample usage for {{merge-multiple}}, {{mergesection}} etc. as well. –Pomte 15:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Editprotected edit needed
 |
It is requested that an edit or modification be made to this protected page. (protection log) This template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request. Please disable this template when the request is handled. |
|
This template is for requesting changes to the content of the page. To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection instead. |
|
- I concurred with above back in January when I changed and fixed up the usage... just got back around now to implement such when I tripped over it again.
- Hence, please change all three See also Templates: merge , mergeto, and mergefrom templates with the explicit inclusion of the combined usage page now in {{merge/doc}} so that the line in each of the three:
{{/doc}}reads instead:{{merge/doc}}
- Note that per my changes,
- mergeto/doc and mergefrom/doc are currently redirect templates and so all is working okay and there is no hurry.
