Template talk:Merge

TOC

Can someone fix this template so that it isn't conflicting with the new TOC? See Qaila Jangi for an example – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 01:24, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

There's nothing obvious in the template that controls its placement, so it's probably something in the site's master stylesheet. But the only problem I'm seeing is that the red box goes behind the TOC, and for a temporary tag like this, I wouldn't worry about it. -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:11, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Slimming it down

Per (WT-en) Globe-trotter's suggestion at Template talk:Vfd#Friendliness, here's a proposal to slim down this template. Current version:

Proposed update:

This topic may not meet the Wikivoyage criteria for a separate article and should be merged into [[{{{1}}}]]. If you have an opinion, please discuss on this article's talk page. Please do not add new content to this article, but instead add it to [[{{{1}}}]]. You can help by copying any relevant information from this page to [[{{{1}}}|the new page]]. Once all content has been copied, this article should be made into a redirect. Please do not remove this merge notice without first gaining consensus for the removal on the article's talk page.

Comments/Suggestions? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:31, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

I like it, but as I was wondering just yesterday, why do we say that it may not meet the criteria? Why not doesn't meet the criteria? (WT-en) texugo 23:50, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

I would't be opposed to changing it from "may not" to "does not", but since this template can be put on a page by anyone and the resulting discussions sometimes lead to the article not being merged the "may not" verbiage doesn't seem altogether incorrect. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:18, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

Yeah, I suppose you are right... (WT-en) texugo 12:28, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

Any other comments? Going once... -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:27, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

I like the new look, but I think I have a nitpicky comment about the wording. Since it is "...may not meet...", shouldn't it be "...may have to be merged into..." instead of "...should be merged into..."? I can't still totally comprehend these auxiliary (is that the right word?) verbs in English, though, so if should is okay for everyone else, it's okay for me, too. – (WT-en) Vidimian 08:34, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

I understand your confusion there, but I think it should be kept as it. If we put "may have to be", it really sounds like we are sitting around waiting for a decision on it, instead of encouraging people to go ahead and start merging. (WT-en) texugo 09:51, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Template updated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:01, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Good work! --(WT-en) globe-trotter 07:29, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

without explanation

Ryan, you've just added this switch that give more text when there is no explanation given. We just made an effort back in August to pare these tags down to the bare minimum, so I have at the very least removed the extra line breaks you added. Personally, I don't see any convincing advantage to adding the rest of the text either, since it only duplicates the link already given above on the words "article critera". Texugo (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The change came out of a conversation with a new user who didn't understand why a merge template was present because no reason had been specified for adding it, and was implemented in the same way that {{style}} was done. I'm not sure I agree with trying to minimize space taken up by a template that essentially says "this text isn't article-worthy" - I would actually think that in such a case we want to make it prominent to both readers and editors that the current article is one that should go away. Additionally, I think having the explanation for why the article is tagged for merging in its own paragraph helps to highlight that reasoning. Can you provide a pointer to the "slimming down" discussion so I can review the arguments made and respond accordingly (I assume it's not the one that precedes this section, since that was mostly about consolidating text rather than saving screen real estate)? -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

One additional note - the line breaks before the "reason" explanation were there before my recent change, so I've restored those, but removed them in cases where no "reason" explanation is given. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That discussion has now been swept to Wikivoyage_talk:Template_index#Position_and_size_of_maintenance_tags. I personally don't care that much, but apparently there are some who simply hate maintenance tags in general, and the reduction in size and wordiness was a kind of conciliatory move to those who want to abolish them outright and/or obstruct us from having a complete set of them. Texugo (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer - I was traveling and without internet access during the time that discussion was ongoing and obviously missed it. I've modified my additions so that the only extra text is now "Reason for merging: None specified." in cases where no reason is provided, which mimics what was done with {{style}} as a prod to get people to always explain why a tag has been added. That said, I really think the merge tag should be more prominent since unlike some of the other maintenance tags it is a red flag that the current article doesn't stand on its own, but I don't feel strongly enough about it that I want to spearhead the effort to change things. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to put merge tags on talk pages instead of on articles

I am proposing that merge tags be placed on the talk page of the article in question instead of on the article page. Mergers are a housekeeping question of interest and relevance to experienced editors. Mergers are not relevant to casual readers. Let's put readers first by dealing with this stuff on the talk page, and not have "This topic may not meet our article criteria" be the first thing they read when they open the article. The issues around mergers can be complex, and take months to resolve. Some mergers are waiting for people with local knowledge to come along and sort out, and we don't have those people for everywhere this guide covers. Under this proposal, the articles would still show up in lists of articles needing attention, but wouldn't be in the faces of casual readers. The tags text would have to change from:

This topic may not meet our article criteria and should be merged into {another article}. Relevant content from here and any new content should be placed at {another article}. You can help by copying any relevant information from this page to the new page. Please direct any opinions to the talk page and gain consensus before removing this tag. Reason for merging: None specified.

to something like:

This topic may not meet our article criteria and should be merged into {another article}. Relevant content from this article and any new content should be placed at {another article}. You can help by copying any relevant information from this article to the {another article}. Please discuss any concerns about his proposal below and gain consensus before removing this tag. Reason for merging: None specified.

Edits would also be needed to the instructions for proposing mergers. Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to move admin tags to the talk page from the point of view of of the reader. Only minor drawback is cannot use PetScan on multiple categories, although it does work with searching for templates on talk pages. Would make specific searches more effort. Alternative is smaller tag at the bottom of the page. Something I remember trying to get for the more information on other languages tag. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me and from a users point of view. Agree. --ButteBag (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Assuming no real technical problems related to this change, I support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• I understand the idea behind this move, but I think that we are less likely to get responses from occasional editors, who may not be logged in every time they visit the site. The most important comments can come from people who have actually been to the city being merged. This could be addressed by simply waiting longer, say 3-6 months. I like the idea of just moving the tag to the bottom of the page. AlasdairW (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I need to test but I think this is possible (but may need a resave of the article page). How about adding the template to the talk page but a line of text is automatically added to the exiting article status block at the bottom of the article page when there is a notice of the talk page? --Traveler100 (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Having the merge tag at the bottom of the article achieves the same thing I had in mind when I proposed this, so if that can be made to work, I'd support it. Ground Zero (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Trying to be clever with information on the article page due to template on the talk looks a little complicated and possibility of odd results depending on order of pages being saved. I think the best solution is to move the tag to the bottom of the page, and maybe make it a little smaller. Then all existing functions such such as maintenance scans will work the same. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like the best approach then. Thank you for sorting this out. Ground Zero (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘{Swept from the pub to consolidate discussion here}

Merging (and districtification too, for that matter) are not relevant to the traveler/reader, and do belong on the talk pages.

I do, however, think that some sort of notification on the page itself is also necessary to notify readers of active debates going on on talk pages, should they wish to contribute. Without such visual notification, discussions on merging and districtification risk drawing little to no interest, freezing them in limbo indefinitely without a decision/consensus ever being reached. ArticCynda (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps they could be moved to the end of the page, alongside the "this article is usable/a guide/an outline" and the routeboxes? K7L (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

That is a real issue. I looked at a recent edit to the Ha Giang article and wondered why there wasn't a merge tag on the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

So, you know what's funny about this? I went into the documentation to change the instructions about the placement of the tag, and I found that it says, "Usage: Place this template at the bottom of an article that needs to be merged with another article."

D'oh!

I'll just move the tags in articles to be merged then.

I think it is still worth thinking about how long we want to leave these tags on, but as they are going to be at the bottom of articles, there is now much less of a concern about making readers read through our administrative stuff. Ground Zero (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)