Template talk:Afd-merge from

Colour

Should this message box not be pink, like all the other merge-related templates? Gurch 19:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the only merger template that's intended to be placed on talk pages. As such, it uses the standard talk page template colouring. —David Levy 21:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Very difficult to use

I have to say, this template is really hard to use, and I don't see myself using this template again. I much prefer mergefrom. Not only is it less instrusive to the main articlespace (this infobox is a real monster!), but it's incredibly hard to use when you consider that the main users of this template have to plough through tonnes of AfD closures. The only possible way this template could be used is through a user script, but even then, there's too much information that needs to be pasted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Please explain why you believe that these templates are difficult to use. The only parameters are the title of the other article, the name of the debate (usually the same), and the date. A date parameter was just added to the standard {{merge}} templates, so this really isn't any extra information in most cases.

2. Only {{afd-mergeto}} is intended for use in the article namespace, with {{afd-mergefrom}} going on talk pages (hence the coloring and the above instructions).

It makes perfect sense to place a large, attention-grabbing tag on a page with an AfD decision to merge its content elsewhere and turn it into a redirect. This is not the same as a situation in which someone has informally suggested that a merger occur (for which the smaller tags are appropriate).

Meanwhile, it would be inappropriate to disrupt the destination article with such a large tag, and that's why it goes on the talk page instead. (Optionally, a standard {{mergefrom}} tag can be added to the article.) —David Levy 23:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's my fault I missed the "talk page" in bold, but basically, these templates require three parameters: the title of the article, the name of the debate, and the date. The mergeto and mergefrom only required one (with an optional parameter if the discussion is on another page). I had to refer back to the original AfD two or three times whereas when using mergeto and mergefrom, I only had to refer back to it once. If I'm in an AfD where someone nominated several articles that have to be merged, that's a lot of referring back (indeed, I was about to try it in such a situation and decided to hold off until I saw a simpler AfD in which to use the tags). I tried it out when I noticed it, and the AfD notice is nice, but I think it's much simpler to use the mergeto and mergefrom tags, especially when the AfD notices already exist in each article marked with mergeto. I suppose given that afd-mergefrom is a talk page template, that might find some use in the talk page given that I often open up a section in the target article to explain why I put up a mergefrom tag, but afd-mergeto is simply not worth it: I'd rather use mergeto. I guess that's not really helpful feedback, so my apologies. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The second parameter (the name of the debate) usually is the same as the first (the title of the other article), so it can simply be copied and pasted twice. Only when the debate has a different name (most likely because the article was nominated for deletion more than once or because several articles were listed together) is it necessary to copy and paste something different.

As noted above, a date parameter has been added to the standard merger templates ({{merge}},{{mergeto}}, {{mergefrom}}, et cetera). For proper categorization, we now are supposed to type {{merge|Other article|date=April 2024}}.

When I get a chance, I'll attempt to make the AfD link parameter optional (for use only when it differs from the title of the nominated article), which wasn't technically feasible when the templates were created (because the required functionality had not yet been added to MediaWiki). It wouldn't be difficult, but I want to see if this can be done without breaking the existing syntax (which is a bit trickier). —David Levy 13:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(I am now using afd-mergefrom, but am still using mergeto and mergefrom-multiple) The more I think about it, the more I think that this template would benefit from a user script similar to what Johnleemk did for AfD closers. When I took a moment and stepped back to look at how I was using the templates, {{oldafdfull}} is just as difficult to use, if not more so, but Johnleemk's user script made it very easy for me to use (including type "d" as a default for the AfD page so I don't necessarily have to type it out). Perhaps I should take a look at his script and modify for use with this and the afd-mergeto templates. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If you could do that, it would be much appreciated. —David Levy 20:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Should template be removed after performing the merge?

Should this template be removed from the talk page after performing the merge? If so, should this be stated in the documentation? If not, should this template be replaced by a different template which does not add the talk page to the "Articles to be merged since . . ." category.? Or should there be a parameter that could be added to prevent generation of the category. Example: Talk:Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress is still in the (hidden) Category:Articles to be merged since April 2007, though the merge has been performed. --Boson (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The tag text and category should reflect that the merge has been done. Unfortunately, there is no {{afd-merged-from}}. An alternative is {{merged-from}}, with the AfD result on the redirected article's Talk page, but it is messy with multiple articles. Flatscan (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone really should make the afd-merged-from template. I'm going through Category:articles to be merged and finding that most of them have already been merged, but no one removed/changed the template. So I'm switching them to {{merged-from}} but that's less informative... Stevage 05:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I finally wrote {{afd-merged-from}}. It should be directly substitutable (diff) once the merge has been completed. Flatscan (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories need fixing

I am not knowledgeable about template code or else I would do this. This template should be fixed to use the same category structure as {{merge}} and Category:Articles to be merged should then go to WP:CFD.--BirgitteSB 17:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Merges not done?

What about articles where the AfD was closed as "merge", but on further consideration there was general consensus that this would not be a good idea after all, so the merge was not done. For an example, see for instance Talk:Judeo-Christian and Talk:Christianity and Judaism. After discussion (archived here) there was consensus that merging the latter into the former would not be helpful, so the merge was not done.

But there should probably still be a reference to the AfD discussion.

Would it be appropriate to create a new template, Template:Afd-merge-from not done ? Jheald (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Category problem

This template has a problem - it places the page in an undated merge category. Can it be modified to add a date parameter to be categorized correctly? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If you add the date to the template, or wait until a bot comes along to do so, then the category will also be dated. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

In theory, yeah. In practice, no. Category:Articles to be merged is the undated merge category and I think every single one uses this template. So even if the template can be dated, it isn't being dated. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right. And the reason is an interesting one. The date is added in the ddmmyyyy format, but the category expects a MONTHNAME YEAR format. I'll contact the editor who is responsible for this edit and this kind of things in general, and we'll see what he recommends. Debresser (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This are talk-page instances. I generally run talk-page stuff (or to be more accurate no main-space stuff) semi-manually because there are more chances of use-mention confusion. Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

This is a talkpage template. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah... misread the page header ... :) Rich Farmbrough, 16:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

OK the "31 August 2011" is parameter 3, the "August 2011" is paramter "date =". (And they may be non-matching.) Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Yes, I know, but it is not in the documentation. Nor is it reasonable to have two date parameters. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Does this tag even need to categorize at all? After all, this is placed on the talk page of a destination article, meaning the tag is already on the source article anyway. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Afd-merged-from which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)