Template talk:Merge/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Broken

User:Koavf yes agree, I noticed {{merge from}} is broken too e.g. spurious {{#if:Branch misprediction|| on Branch predictor. A few purges later and it still seems broken. From your self-revert, are you saying this isn't the problem [1] ? Ping User:JJMC89 . Regards Widefox; talk 02:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Widefox: Evidently. But I did a standard refresh instead of a purge cache. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem was Wbm1058's edit to {{merge partner}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thanks for fixing it. I wanted to remove someone's user sandbox from the category, so that {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Articles for merging with no partner|pages}} (0) wouldn't show a false positive indicating that there was a page in the category needing to be fixed. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, regards Widefox; talk 12:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding criteria to template itself

I propose to add merge criteria code to template itself, just like {{db}}. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

What would the list of criteria codes look like? wbm1058 (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

We can start with the 4 listed here -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I would also be interested in people's thoughts about Template:Duplication. When to use that vs. when to use a template in the {{merge}} family. wbm1058 (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

{{Duplication}} seems handy if you think a merge or rearrangement is needed, but you don't want to say X should be merged into Y because you are agnostic or unsure or it's just more complicated than that. That may avoid the pattern in merge discussions where a lot of people vote "oppose" even though the majority thinks something else should be done to resolve overlap issues. -- Beland (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Latest changes

I have reverted these changes by Beland, which were no doubt made in part due to me rightfully complaining (as seen here and here) about Beland tagging articles for merging without starting a discussion on the article talk page about merging, and (in the first case) returning to re-store the merge tag after it was removed due to no justification having been made for its addition. Drive-by tagging is discouraged for valid reasons. Template:POV, for example, explicitly discourages it.

Beland added, "If you think the rationale for merger is obvious, there is no requirement to start a discussion on the talk page." I clearly disagreed with him on his "no requirement to a start a discussion" view at Talk:Female hysteria. The template before Beland's changes clearly states, "After adding the merge template, you are expected to create a section on the talk page of the appropriate article (see below for details) explaining your rationale for the merge proposal. If the rationale is so obvious that it requires no explanation, then you should consider boldly merging the pages yourself rather than setting up a discussion." The template after Beland's edit also stated, "Keep in mind that what is obvious to you might not be obvious to other editors." Um, well, that is all the more reason to start a discussion. But the original wording is clear that "If the rationale is so obvious that it requires no explanation, then you should consider boldly merging the pages yourself rather than setting up a discussion."

The changes by Beland to the long-standing wording of the template should be discussed. If I need to bring other editors into this, I will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinging the following active editors who have edited the template more than once: Debresser, SilkTork, GermanJoe, SMcCandlish, Steel1943, and Godsy. Also pinging WhatamIdoing who added the "When to use" text in 2013. I also see Wbm1058 and Andy M. Wang helping out with matters above on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Beland identifies more strongly with another sentence: "Some editors also use these tags to mark pages that obviously require merging, in the hope that someone else will merge the pages." The assertion that this is not an intended use was added by an editor who was blocked a few weeks later (over a paid-editing scandal, not over merging articles), and I'm doubtful that it is entirely true. Looking at the history, the archives, and the cat, I don't really see any evidence of an original intention to either require discussions or to discourage people from using these tags as an alternative to boldly merging pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense; that's what actually happens in practice, and there are thousands of articles in the merge queue waiting for other editors to perform non-controversial merges. And it's certainly very useful work to identify a problem even if you don't fix it. (Certainly I'm not going to have time to do a merge if I just happened to notice duplicate articles on my subway ride to work, which happens a lot to me. Though occasionally when I'm at home I see merge tags other people have left, no objections on the talk page, and I do the merge because I agree with it. I don't expect the same of other editors if they don't have the time or expertise or inclination, and in fact I am grateful to those who flag only.) Duplicate articles are often hard to find if they aren't linked to each other, and sometimes even if they are. I'd say 90% of the tags I place are non-controversial, and I don't think starting a pro-forma discussion like "I think the articles should be merged because they overlap in scope" would be helpful in reaching consensus on articles where other editors want to dispute the merge. That's a lot different than POV problems which are usually controversial, and also different than the cleanup tag, which requires a reason because a lot of people were tagging problems that were too subtle to see at a glance. (Unlike duplicate scope, which should be obvious just from the titles of the articles involved.) -- Beland (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• I would keep the previous version, which is clearer and less verbose. To address Beland's valid point I'd simply change

  If the rationale is so obvious that it requires no explanation, then you should consider boldly merging the pages yourself rather than setting up a discussion.

  to

  If the rationale is so obvious that it requires no explanation, then you should consider boldly merging the pages yourself, or explain on the talkpage why you didn't do so yourself.

  Debresser (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Going with the more concise version with that tweak works for me, if we revert the edit WhatamIdoing identified that apparently doesn't have much support? -- Beland (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. WhatamIdoing's wording stated, "After adding the merge template, please create a section on the talkpage explaining your rationale for the merge proposal." So, regardless, the text was originally guiding editors to start a discussion about the merge on the article's talk page. At Talk:Female hysteria, I've already noted why doing so is important. Why it's often important anyway. Currently, the text states, "After adding the merge template, you are expected to create a section on the talk page of the appropriate article see below for details) explaining your rationale for the merge proposal." So the wording is currently stronger than it previously was, but not without good reasons. The "When to remove" section that WhatamIdoing added gave "No discussion found" as a reason to remove the template. The section still gives that reason. And this is partly why I've told Beland that he should expect an editor to remove the template if there is no section on the talk page about why the articles should be merged. I understand leaving the template up there for obvious cases, but, as noted, what is obvious to one person is not always obvious to another. And the templates can stay up there for years, which is why the template page currently directs editors to merge the content themselves in obvious cases. As for what happens in practice, people starting a merge discussion happens in actual practice. And if it's the case that there's more people than not who don't do so, it doesn't mean that not doing so is good practice. I clearly don't think that it's good practice (except for obvious cases where the content should be merged). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• At the very least, if the "obvious" merge rationale isn't discussed on the talk page, it should be concisely stated in the edit summary. I'll point back to § Adding criteria to template itself and suggest that all "obvious" rationales could be listed at WP:MERGEREASON (think of that as "criteria for speedy merging"), and if your rationale isn't listed there, then it isn't "obvious". Also, merging a generic topic into a more specific topic (e.g. Hysteria into Female hysteria) is virtually always trouble and leads to grief. If there isn't enough material on a topic to justify a summary-style content split, then merge the more specific title into the generic title (i.e. Female hysteria into Hysteria). In any event, such merges should never be considered "obvious". – wbm1058 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, the content and the article titles dictates what needs to be merged...for example, sometimes there's an article about X, but it's actually only about X in the United States, and so we end up merging to the more specific article, and maybe leaving a stub behind. A bunch of material on hysteria did in fact need to be merged into female hysteria, since it was about the sexist medical diagnosis, not general mental distress. But given the content it was not sensible to do a full merge, even though that's what I originally proposed. (In that case, it was initially unclear to me that there were actually two distinct topics worth more than a dictionary definition.) -- Beland (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I made the proposed changes to the template documentation, interpreting a bit as an automatic undo was not possible due to intervening edits. I hope everyone finds it satisfactory now. -- Beland (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• As a general principle it is somewhat helpful and collegiate collegial to indicate somewhere the reason for a merge tag (and preferably on the talk page and linked from the tags). I am one of those editors who does occasionally (less so these days) spend some time going through Category:Articles to be merged, and I have found over the years a number of merge tags added without a rationale. Such tags may have been left on an article for years with no merge done because the reason for it isn't obvious. Working out if a merge is appropriate or not can take some time if there is no easy starting point on which to base a decision one way or another. If the merge is that obvious, it shouldn't be too difficult to jot down the reason. If people are encouraged to spend that moment or two thinking of the rationale, and they find they are struggling to put their impulse into words, that may be enough to indicate to them that perhaps a merge is not appropriate. I have not kept a record, but, anecdotally, my feeling is that I have actioned more merges with a rationale than without. SilkTork (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  Not just helpful and collegial, but if you don't link a talk page discussion, people aren't clear where to talk about it. There's a common confusion that merge discussions are held at the merge-from page's talk page, when they belong at the merge-to page's talk page. I oppose any change to this template's documentation (or code) that suggests the parameter for linking the talk thread is just some very optional afterthought. It's not. It's part of the process, like opening a WP:RM thread at the talk page if you want an article to move, instead of just saying it should move in some edit summary, or mentioning it in a third-level reply to someone's other topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's proposing changing the way the templates link to discussions. The way it is now, if you don't specify any parameters, the templates link to the merge-to talk page. -- Beland (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• I do not think that anyone should interpret my bold changes to the documentation in 2013 as being the "original". I pushed our advice towards encouraging (but not requiring) discussions. The actual original predates my first edit by several years. For the first 15 months of this template's existence, there was no mention of discussions at all.
  IMO the correct balance is this: It is acceptable to add tags without starting a discussion, but it is better to start a discussion, because it makes things easier on less experienced editors, and because what's obvious to one editor might be confusing to another. And by "acceptable", I mean truly, fully acceptable, not grudgingly tolerated as long as I think someone will yell at me for objecting to someone not following the "rules" perfectly. Everyone in this discussion has seen this community trend towards bureaucratization and silly games of Mother May I? ("Ha, I get to revert your suggestion, because you didn't say Mother, May I? first!"), and we don't need that in this area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Very much agreed. I think the latest change has moved closer to that balance, but is still a little on the "you have to do this" side. -- Beland (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, if we are being accurate, your wording is the original wording with regard to the text we've pointed to. No one is talking about how the page was before your changes. We are talking about the guidance you added and the changes made to it. Furthermore, this is not about bureaucratization and silly games. We are not even talking about a policy or guideline. This is about what wbm1058, SilkTork, SMcCandlish and myself have stated in this section. Except for very obvious cases, there's really no excuse to be adding a merge tag without noting why on the talk page it was added. And, of course, we've addressed the "what is obvious" aspect. You are okay with "encouraging (but not requiring) discussions." Others, like me, are not...except for in very obvious cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

And to be clearer, I am not stating that a discussion is required; I am stating that the editor should usually attempt a discussion on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I have the feeling that the articles that end up in the "to be merged" queue are disproportionately problem cases. It's not surprising that it would take some time to read the articles involved in order to form an opinion about the best course of action. But I am sympathetic to the idea that this clearance process would be sped up if the difficult cases had rationales. If that's the preferred starting point, it's certainly possible to ping the editor who applied the tag and move on to a different case while waiting for a reply. Though personally if I read through and didn't see a reason for merging and it had been sitting around for many months I'd feel fine dropping the tag and leaving a note on the talk page explaining the rationale for not merging, and leaving the door open to other editors re-adding the tag and arguing in favor of merging.

To make it easier for editors who are doing the tagging to explain themselves, what do people think about adding a "reason" parameter as has been done with {{cleanup}}? I'm sure if that's better because it lowers the barrier to explaining, or worse because there are usually two templates and it would be better to have the rationale in a single talk page rather than potentially in two places? -- Beland (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I restored the "you are expected to" wording. I don't see any consensus in this discussion that not noting on the talk page why the merge tag was added is in any way ideal. In fact, I see consensus for the opposite. And "expected to" does not mean "should," even though "should" is indicated by "expected to." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I looked through ten of the merge proposals from December 2018. I thought a couple should be merged; I thought some could be merged; I thought that a couple shouldn't be merged. In almost all cases, discussions had been started on the designated page (although in two cases, the link didn't point to the correct section heading). I generally found that posting a rationale was unnecessary. My first prediction about the rationale, which was based on nothing more than a glance at the lead and the title of the proposed target, was correct in all but one case. Sometimes the discussion added information that I didn't know, but I don't think that we gained a lot by telling the proposers to spell out "I think this little subject should be merged into this big article" or "I think these are the same thing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Per what I stated above, I can't agree that posting a rationale is generally unnecessary. And you did note that "In almost all cases, discussions had been started on the designated page." So it seems that most others feel that a rationale or at least an attempt at a discussion (such as asking if the articles should be merged) is ideal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Merging template bugs

Per my experiments on the sandbox, I have discovered several bugs with the Merging template that should be addressed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AngusWOOF/sandbox&oldid=894764108

1) If the Merging template is filled in with carriage returns after each param, then it does not list the link to the target article correctly.

{{Merging
|Section 13 of the Constitution of Australia
|dir=into
|talk=Talk:Double dissolution#Merge articles
|date=April 2019}}

The spaces would have to be removed, as in this example:

{{Merging|Section 13 of the Constitution of Australia|dir=into|talk=Talk:Double dissolution#Merge articles|date=April 2019}}

2) If the Merging template is applied to non-main space such as User or Draft, then the target link must go to the same space. This might be intentional but if so, then it should be pointed out. It looks like this was already reported at Template_talk:Merge#Merge_templates_don't_work_across_namespace

Thanks in advance for any code fixes you can do. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: It is normal behaviour. Positional parameters always preserve whitespace (spaces, tabs, carriage returns, line feeds and form feeds); named parameters strip it. This is documented at WP:PARAMETER. You don't need to remove all of the spaces and newlines yourself - or even any of them. These will work:

{{Merging
|Section 13 of the Constitution of Australia|dir=into
|talk=Talk:Double dissolution#Merge articles
|date=April 2019}}

- no extraneous whitespace in the positional parameter, use as much as you like in the named params; or

{{Merging
|1=Section 13 of the Constitution of Australia
|dir=into
|talk=Talk:Double dissolution#Merge articles
|date=April 2019}}

- explicitly numbering the parameter converts it from a positional parameter into a named param. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, I updated the merging doc to explain this in case others get the same problem. Hope that's alright. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 May 2019

I suggest that a no category option should be added to {{merge}}, {{merge to}} and {{merge from}}. This would be helpful for maintaining the Category:Items to be merged which is the category where merge tags in non article space go. Many of these tags are people copying an article with a merge tag to their user space to perform a major edit or test other things with the article, these pages should not be in the category and straight up removing them is something I've been critizsized for before. The best way to solve this issue would be adding this no category option. Trialpears (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Trialpears (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please create a mockup of the suggested changes in this template's sandbox DannyS712 (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Reopening since I now have created a mockup in each templates sandbox. I am a very inexperienced template editor, but it seems to me like this is working. Testing was performed by previewing edits made on pages where this feature would be applied when incorporated and observing that the category was gone without changing other appearance. For testing recreation purposes these were the pages I used: User:MoRsE/Finnish War, User:Abyssal and User:Mudwater/draft8 and all I did was changing the template to the corresponding sandbox version and adding the parameter noref=true. This removed the items to be merged category in all three cases. Trialpears (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The code used was copied from Wikipedia:Category suppression#Attribute-based suppression examples. Trialpears (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what's happening here. 😵 Abyssal (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Your user page has a few merge tags that add it to Category:Items to be merged. It should not be in that category since you're not proposing that your user page should be merged into another page. To remove the category from your user page and other similar pages without disturbing your talk page I'm suggesting that a no category option should be added to the merge template. The reason you were tagged was because I used your page as a random test page. Trialpears (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Not done for now: I think this needs a consensus. On that point, if you are being criticized for removing pages from the maintenance queue that shouldn't be in the maintenance queue, you should probably get a third opinion from a trusted editor. Alternatively, don't remove the tags, just use {{tl}} or a comment to hide/remove from display the template. Izno (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The critique was regarding changing things in other peoples user spaces not for removing pages from the maintenance category. I believe there is consensus that the category should only be used for actual merge requests, but I will add a link to this page on WT:WikiProject Merge. For the suggestion to use {{tl}} or commenting out the tag: That is what I have been doing. Sample edits from hours before the complaint include this and this with all edits being similar to these. I also want to note that after explaining my positon to @Slatersteven: they thought what I was doing was fine, but encouraged me to have more polite edit summaries. The primary reason for me suggesting this edit instead of continuing like I've been doing is to make the edits even less intrusive and to remove pages that use the tags for demonstrative purposes such as WP:WikiProject Merge. Trialpears (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

No I think I said leaving a message would be better then altering users sandboxes. I accepted your explanation, I did not say I agreed with it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. It seems like wbm1058's solution will solve this problem without requireing edits to user pages though so no more edits should have to be performed for this purpose (and none have since you commented on my talk page). Trialpears (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: I have been just ignoring this category up to now, but your edit-requests have brought it to my attention. Before proposing changes to templates, a deeper analysis should be done to understand the rationale for and purpose of the template. Looking at the edit which created the category, I see Group misplaced items!, indicating that the category's creator believed that the merge templates were only intended for use in mainspace, and use in any other namespace was invalid. An edit request was made under the section-heading Distinguishing non-article namespace (implemented HERE). Category creator William Allen Simpson said "I'm trying to clean up non-articles, like Categories, that should never use it." The choice of name for this category wasn't ideal, as it didn't communicate the concept that is was intended to report misplaced templates. But, seeing the simple template edit, it's understandable. It's easy to insert the word "Articles" when NAMESPACE is null and "Items" when it's not. Similar edits were made to Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from, which weren't edit protected. The purpose of Category:Items to be merged was muddled by this edit which singled out templates and categories, but removed the idea that anything in the category was misplaced.

Your proposal would still require editing pages in userspace to add |nocat=true, which strikes me as a lot of unnecessary, low-priority work that risks annoying some editors. I think we should just ignore the templates in user space; we can update the templates to never categorize pages in user space. These tags are relatively harmless, and if an editor wants to discuss updating an article with changes they made to a copy or draft in their sandbox, that editor should simply initiate discussion on the talk page for the article. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That sounds great! I have been a bit hesitent to straight up removing them all since I have once found content that was actually suitable for a merge and had was not copied from an article. I do however realise that as you said this is low-priority work and not a good use of editor time. I think your suggeestion would be both more efficient and less controversial and fully support it. Trialpears (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Dated maintenance category (shortcut: {{DMC}}) adds the category. So we just avoid calling this template when the merge tag in in userspace. wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Help:Switch parser function describes how #switch: works. I needed to refresh my memory on this.

||Talk={{DMC|Articles to be merged|from||All articles to be merged}} this line handles both mainspace and talk.

|#default={{DMC|||Items to be merged}} this line handles all other namespaces. we just need to insert special handling for the userspaces above this line.

OK, I have a new version – if there are no objections after a reasonable wait time for comments, I'll make it live. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done – wbm1058 (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Why don't users of this template actually start any discussions?

I find myself wondering why the documentation for this template does not recommend that editors adding it to articles should actually start a discussion by arguing their case for the merge. The reasoning isn't always obvious, and certainly by adding the tag you are establishing that the merge is potentially controversial and discussion is probably required. If the editor prefers not to boldly merge or redirect, it seems a little pointless to even tag the article if you're not going to justify yourself. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 15:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed!--50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:MERGEPROP explicitly directs you to start a discussion. That is precisely what I did at Talk:Exothermic welding#Merge discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed fix to Merge to (this is a bigger fix - args move around)

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)

Proposed wording improvement (to Merge)

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: [2] 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)

Other page is involved page or destination page?

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 2021

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)