Template talk:Merge
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Merge template. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Template talk:Merge to, Template talk:Merge from and Template talk:Merging redirect here. |
 | Template:Merge is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
 | This template was considered for merging with Template:tfm on 10 November 2010. The result of the discussion was "do not merge". |
|
Related archived pages:
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This talk page is for the discussion of the following templates:
- {{Merge}}
- {{Merge to}}
- {{Merge from}}
- {{Merging}}
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.
Template:Merge to display issue
editBy default, {{Merge to}} produces output that reads "([[|Discuss]])" if you don't specify a |discuss= value; {{Merge from}} doesn't have this issue. I'm guessing that we should have them do the same thing. I would surmise that the best thing to do in both cases (though it might use different code in the two templates) is include a link to the talk page of the merge-to target, since that is the default location to discuss any merge. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Date display issue (in all these templates)
editThis whole family of templates are unhelpfully displaying "Proposed since {{{date}}}.", when no |date= value has been specified. This entire item should probably just be suppressed in such a case (and a bot will date-fix it later anyway; there's no reason for it to be ugly and confusing in the short interim). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Autovalue
editI tried to set TemplateData's autovalue for |section= to have it autofill the suggested yes when checking the parameter's box. However it's not working. How should this be made to work? 142.113.140.146 (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Without reason
editI suggest not displaying the output of the parameter "reason=" on the article page when this template is placed. The documentation doesn't include 'reason' as a parameter, yet this merge template will use it; a feature that some editors exploit. This is contrary to the merge process, which requires a discussion to be started on the talk page (Step 1; preferably of the intended target for the merge), not to add a reason in the template. This process is in place because it encourages the creation of a place for discussion to be coordinated, without the reason for the merge being separated from the discussion it is intended to provoke. To give an example, as of this version the 'reason' is display in the template at Fulwith Mill Lane, unnecessarily duplicating the case on the talk page. In other cases, editor neglect to start a case on the talk page. Klbrain (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)