Template talk:Merge/Voting archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request for comment (round 1)

Voting shall be held from 3 July 2005 at 18:30 (UTC) until 10 July 2005 at 18:30 (UTC). The goal is to establish both the wording and the visual style of the three primary "merge" templates: {{merge}}, {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}}. You may vote on neither, either or both of these issues. Please also provide any pertinent comments. Note that some of the proposed wordings contain overlapping elements. Each voter should indicate one "first choice" (to receive a full vote), but may also indicate one or more other choices (to receive ½ vote each). If one wording does not receive a majority of votes, a one-week runoff vote shall be held between the two most popular wordings.


Vote #1 — Wording


Wording "A":

This article or section should be merged with other article title.


Wording "B":

Merging this article or section with other article title may be desirable.   (Discuss)


Wording "C":

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with other article title.


Wording "D":

This article or section will be merged with other article title unless there are objections on the talk page.


Wording "E":

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with other article title.   (Discuss)


Add *Wording "?" (followed by an optional brief explanation), and sign your vote with: ~~~~


  • Wording "E" is my favorite. My second choice is wording "B". Anyone can insert these templates anywhere. It's important to remain neutral, rather than authoritatively implying that the merger decision is official. —Lifeisunfair 3 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
  • Wording B is far better. If the tagger feels so strongly about merging that he means to say should be then he can say so on the talk page or just go ahead and merge. I think people using this tag are looking for comments before going ahead and making such a big change. Thus, may be desirable. Discuss. is perfect. DoubleBlue (Talk) 3 July 2005 19:51 (UTC) [posted prior to the addition of wordings "C," "D" and "E"]
To be clear, I still prefer B because it is brief, clear, in the active voice, and of the appropriate tone including a link to talk page. "It has been suggested that..." is a little too passive and mealy-mouthed for my taste while A & D have an unnecessary and inaccurately authoritative tone — You will be assimilated! Honestly, though, I over-state the differences. Any are acceptable. I just prefer B. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 02:59 (UTC)
  • Wording "C" reads the best to me. violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)
I like this wording (which is nearly identical to the wording that I originally devised), but people often insert these templates without posting any comments on the talk pages. Therefore, the word "suggested" should not serve as the talk page link, which should remain separate (as shown in wording "E"). —Lifeisunfair 3 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)
  • Wording E is IMO the best combination. If the others, I prefer Wording C or failing that Wording B. I agree with Lifeisunfair's reasoning above. I strongly object to the "should" wording. Wording D might be useful as a seperate template, but it conveys a sense of urgency i don't think we want in the basic template.DES 3 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)
  • Preferably A, though I don't mind E. — Dan | Talk 3 July 2005 22:53 (UTC)
To clarify, the current link is merely an example; it actually would lead to the article's talk page (as would the "Discuss" links of wordings "B" and "E").
  • Wording A, though E is all right, too. James F. (talk) 3 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)
  • Wording B, weedy weak and non-confrontational. MeltBanana 3 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)
  • Wording B. But, there needs to be a second template, to indicate a definite merge. Some people, such as non-admins closing VfDs often stick the merge template on when they close it. Then someone comes along, removes it, and the article stays. This should be addressed. Hedley 3 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)
There is a template that indicates a definite merge. It's called {{merging}}. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)
  • Wording E To the point, has discuss link. Tznkai 4 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)
  • Wording A - if there is any disagreement, editors are free to remove the notice and discuss on talk. -- Netoholic @ July 4, 2005 02:45 (UTC)
  • B > A - B and A are acceptable, I prefer B. There should be a discuss link for unified discussion. None of the other are acceptable. --MarSch 4 July 2005 11:05 (UTC)
  • E > A > B. I don't think it should imply that someone else is going to come along and do the merging, nor should it imply that someone has actually already commented on the talk page. A link to the talk page is helpful, and I prefer the trailing (Discuss). -- Beland 4 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)
  • I'm a fan of Wording D, followed by A and E. Surely someone putting one of these templates on a page is a statement of intent? I put the templates on when I intend doing such a merger. — OwenBlacker July 5, 2005 14:44 (UTC)
    • Out of curiosity, why do you tag it? Why don't you just merge it if it's your intention to do so? DoubleBlue (Talk) 5 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)
  • E. Provides link to discussion and doesn't make it sound like the merger is unanimously endorsed (considering that anyone can add the template to any page for any reason). --brian0918™ 5 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)
  • E is the best IMO. Adding mergeX is always meant to be a suggestion or RFC if you will, rather than expressing an opinion. B is also good for the same reason. E and B also both have the essential talk page link. --Excession 5 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)
  • A is the most concise. D is a good second choice; the language is more direct, but the notice is longer. All the passive "may be desirables" and "it has been suggesteds" don't belong in such a notice. —Michael Z. 2005-07-5 19:40 Z
  • E is the best, IMHO. B is good too. I like the discuss link and I don't like the biased language of A and D. Gemberling 7 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)
  • E would have my preference, although I would not strongly oppose any of them. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 09:22 (UTC)
  • E, as it doesn't make a normative statement, AND points people at the talk page. Or failing that, B. – Smyth\talk 8 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)
  • E>C>B I like both the suggestion wording and the discussion links. --Laura Scudder | Talk 8 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
  • Wording D but with a change from "will" to "should". Then, in decreasing order of preference, A, then E (only if A and D are totally discounted). ~~~~ 9 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)

Vote #2 — Visual style


Style "X":

The text suggesting a merger is displayed in this manner.


Style "Y":

The text suggesting a merger is displayed in this manner.


Add *Style "X" or *Style "Y" (followed by an optional brief explanation), and sign your vote with: ~~~~


  • Style "Y". In my opinion, it's a fair compromise between the small, text-only version and the large, colored version. Also, almost all of the cleanup templates use colored boxes. —Lifeisunfair 3 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
  • Style "Y". I feel that a coloured box and image may be desirable because a merge is a pretty significant change and, by virtue of tagging the article, one is looking for wider feedback and the box highlights this appropriately. I do agree that it should be no bigger than the recently reverted one was. DoubleBlue (Talk) 3 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)
I don't see a decision on the page you point to. Perhaps i am missing soemthing. Can you give a mopre specifc pointer or quote the decision and where it was accepted or agreed to? DES 3 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)
There isn't one, it's a work in progress and a standard will be decided in due course. violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
  • Style "Y" Style x would blend in too much with the other text in an article whereas style Y stands out, as well as the fact that it seems to follow the visual reasoning behind the other cleanup tags. Jtkiefer July 3, 2005 21:15 (UTC)
  • X — Dan | Talk 3 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)
  • Style X if placed on the main article page, Style Y if placed on the article's talk page. BlankVerse ∅ 3 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)
  • Style "Y" should shout at the editors fix this now, hang the readers maybe it will encourage them to be editors. BTW making policy is fun but Category:Articles to be merged has over 2000 articles. MeltBanana 3 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)
  • Style X. Big colored boxes on article pages should be reserved for major problems that readers, not editors, need to be aware of immediately. --Cryptic (talk) 4 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)
  • Style Y should be a no brainer really. Elfguy 4 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)
  • X, with the additional improvement of adding on a CSS class or id attributes so that people can customize these merge notices in their own personal user style sheets. Template:Disambig is done as I suggest, and any user may change it's look (even removing it from view). Unfortunately, choice "y" forces the obnoxious box onto every reader. These notices by default should be very subtle, because a merger doesn't mean the article is bad, just potentially redundant. Shouting in the same manner we do for important article problems is unnecessary and ugly. -- Netoholic @ July 4, 2005 02:50 (UTC)
Interesting point but I believe choice "Y" could also be done using CSS and users could adjust that as they like. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 04:35 (UTC)
That is not true. If styles are hard-coded into the template page itself, the choices for overriding them with user preferences are extremely limited. -- Netoholic @ July 4, 2005 04:42 (UTC)
Okay, I still stick with "Y". I believe proposing to merge an article is fairly important as it means the loss of its own article space. Surely you know this can be controversial at times. It may not be so important on the merge target page, however. I wonder if the {{mergefrom}} tag shouldn't be on its talk page. In a way, though, it does provide the casual reader a link to another article to read on a related subject. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 04:46 (UTC)
  • Style Y given these choices, but I'd prefer a image but no colored box, really. -- grm_wnr Esc 4 July 2005 07:54 (UTC)
  • Style Y, as it is easier to skip over by casual readers, as you dont have to read the whole text once you're familiar with what the icon means. --Pengo 4 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)
  • colored box with picture, the current design is nice, but many other options are possible. The point is to make this template easily recognizable and any box with picture will do that. --MarSch 4 July 2005 11:07 (UTC)
  • Style Y. NSR 4 July 2005 11:25 (UTC)
  • Y. Readers do need to be aware of pending mergers, since the information they are looking for may be in the other article. It's also more of a red flag (or fuchia flag, or whatever) for editors, which is desirable. Also keep in mind that every reader is a potential editor; I like the idea of putting notices on article pages, to encourage more people to participate. I like this specific image, though I wouldn't object to another if anyone cares to change it, as long as the mergefrom template is consistent. -- Beland 4 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)
  • I've no desperate preference, but have no real objection to colored boxes and am inclined to agree that Style Y provides the right amount of "Editors, take note!" — OwenBlacker July 5, 2005 14:44 (UTC)
  • Style X if placed on the main article page, Style Y if placed on the article's talk page. bbx 5 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)
  • Style X if placed on the main article page, or Style Y if placed on the article's talk page. Agree with Blankverse. --brian0918&#153; 5 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)
  • Style Y for both the main article and the talk page. As mentioned earlier it's important to make sure _all_ users are notified of possible changes. Also, a more noticeable template on the article page might spur someone into doing the merge who hasn't edited before. (you never know.) --Excession 5 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)
  • Style X has enough typographic differentiation to stand apart from the article. Style Y has too much needless decoration, and the centred text is outside of all Wikipedia typographic conventions. —Michael Z. 2005-07-5 19:43 Z
  • Y would be better than X. I think X is the current style and it does blend in with articles too much. I don't usually edit pages but I read a lot of articles and like for this sort of thing to stand out so I don't mistake it for part of the article. Gemberling 7 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)
  • Y. Makes it clear that the comment does not refer to the content of the text (as a pure text statement would), but to its place in the database. Makes it clear to the reader that there is another article covering the same content that they may wish to read. Mpntod July 7, 2005 10:46 (UTC)
  • Y. I also agree with [User:DoubleBlue]]. – Smyth\talk 8 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)
  • Y Should draw attention as unlike disambig it's not a permanent addition, but is indicating a proposed major change in the articles. --Laura Scudder | Talk 8 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)
  • Y Def. That's a great, easy to understand graphic. jengod 9 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)
  • X Y is too noticable for an editorial comment that isn't a warning (e.g. NPOV). ~~~~ 9 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)
  • X, Y is too gaudy. - SimonP 16:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)


Additional wording comments

  • No offense, violet/riga, but you've clouded the discussion (which was supposed to determine the type of wording, not the precise wording). If wording "B" had won, wordings "C," "D" and "E" could have been considered in a subsequent discussion. I especially don't understand why you added wording "D," which no one (including you) has advocated using (rightfully so, because it's flawed in several respects). —Lifeisunfair 3 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)
Sorry but that really does not make sense to me. You simply cannot choose a "type" of wording as there are far too many variations, and it makes sense to just vote for which wording works best as a whole. I added D because I think it is a good variation, being my second choice, and may be liked by others. violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)
The type of wording was what was in dispute. (Do we simply state that the page should be merged, or do we state that this has been proposed, and encouage discussion?) Beyond that, there could be 100 minor variations of either theme, and these should have been should have been considered later. Currently, the votes of those who prefer the former type are consolidated, while the votes of those who prefer the latter type (including you and me) are being fragmented among four variations. (This is why they must be counted together, and then differentiated.) —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)
I disagree. As said (and mentioned below) there are too many variations and you can't just have two "types". violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
Yes, there are far too many variations to list here, so why are we trying?
For wording "A," we could make "should" a talk page link, or we could add it to the end as "Discuss." We could come up with an infinite number of slight variations, but that isn't the intended purpose of this vote. We're trying to determine whether or not to use authoritative wording, and then we should determine the specifics. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)
  • As stated above, wording "D" is flawed in several respects:

1. It isn't neutral; it defines the proposed merger as the default, and demands objections.

2. It inaccurately describes the merger discussion process, which is based upon consensus. (A merger doesn't necessarily proceed if there are no objections, nor does it necessarily not proceed if there are objections.)

3. It ignores the fact that pertinent discussion might be taking place on both articles' talk pages.

—Lifeisunfair 3 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)

It is neutral, stating that the merger will be done unless it is disputed, as is the correct process. WP:DA does not mandate consensus. Also, none of the other wordings meet your final point. violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)
It isn't entirely neutral, because it implies that the decision to merge has been made, and must be countered. It's better to request comments from people with both potential viewpoints. As for my final point, none of the other wordings state that the decision will be based entirely upon discussion from a particular talk page. Also, the {{mergefrom}} "Discuss" link and {{mergeto}} "Discuss" link both lead to the talk page of the source article. (This obviously isn't possible with {{merge}}, because the source and recipient articles aren't defined.) —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)
The decision was made by the person that added the template. WP:DA process is that someone can counter it by changing it to {{mergedisputed}}. Placing {{merge}} on an article does not usually imply that it is a request for comments (support/opposition) about the merge, merely a request that it be done. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
Someone using this tag probably is unsure of whether/how to perform the merger. (Otherwise, he/she would simply do it on his/her own.) In my opinion, such a request should not automatically be deemed logical, thereby placing the burden on others to dispute it. No assumption, beyond the fact that a merger has been suggested, should be made. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)
But that's the way it works and either the WP:DA system is changed or this template has to reflect it. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)

Sorry, why are B, C, D, and E "variations of the same concept"? They all seem quite distinct to me, and there's no particular reason why they should be counted together. If anything, A and E should be together. — Dan | Talk 3 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)

Wording "A" simply states that the pages "should" be merged. Wordings "B," "C," "D," and "E" convey the same information (that the merger is proposed and should be discussed) in slightly different manners.
How are wordings "A" and "E" remotely the same? On the contrary, aside from the placement of the talk page link, wordings "C" and "E" are 100% identical. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)
Whoops. Of course I meant A and D, not A and E. — Dan | Talk 4 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
That makes slightly more sense to me, but "D" (which I strongly dislike) is much closer in effect to "B," "C" and "E." If nothing else, you must recognize that "B," "C" and "E" are basically the same (with the latter two being virtually identical). —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)
Sorry but "should be", "may be desirable", "suggested that" and "will be" are all quite different and should be voted on separately. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
Yes, they should be . . . after (or in addition to) determining which type of wording to use. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)

As part of WP:TS there is yet another variation, as can be seen here. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)

You're making my point for me. There are countless potential variations, so why are we arbitrarily listing a handful (and more of one type than another) here? —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)

Dan: Suppose that wordings "C" and "E" (which are almost 100% identical) each receive ten votes, and wording "A" receives eleven. That means that wording "A" wins? As I said, one wording type had been split four (or at least three) ways, and the other hasn't been split at all. We could have created three slight variations of "A," but we didn't. That doesn't mean that it should prevail on a technicality.

I understand why you don't like the idea of combining votes, and I've come up with an alternative plan that I hope you support. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)

Yep, your suggestion sounds good. Thanks. — Dan | Talk 4 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)


Fundamental flaw in the proposal

There seem to be a number of problems here:

  1. There are different opinions on how the WP:DA process does/should work – as far as I am concerned adding the template to an article does not require discuss before a merge but is merely a request, anybody that disagrees with the merge can block it before it is done. We must all agree on the process before wording discussions can take place.
  2. The vote was created as a "type" of wording vote, though it was very unclear, but is now a different thing. I strongly believe that going by "type" is not a feasible method of organising it given the sheer number of variations in the perceived levels of urgency and whether the next step is to merge or discuss. As for the current vote, it should be approval voting in order to be properly interpreted.
  3. If the template had a two-level text system (as here) the wording would need to be different.

Point number one is a fundamental problem with this and should be determed at WP:DA first. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)

To quote from WP:DA:

If you find a pair of articles that appear to be duplicates, merge them! If you can't carry out the merger yourself, it is suggested that you put the following at the top of each:
{{merge|Other article}}
This informs future visitors to the pages of your request that they be merged.

At no point does that mention discussion or consensus-building and the correct way to counteract it is:

If you disagree with a 'merge' indication then you can remove it, or change the template from {{merge|Article Name}} to {{MergeDisputed|Article Name}} and discuss it on this page until consensus is reached.

Only then do you discuss it (though I think it should be done on the article talk page, not "this" (ie. WP:DA) page. The wording must therefore reflect this procedure insofar as it will be done unless somebody actively disputes it and not that it is currently undergoing discussion. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 08:32 (UTC)

"1. There are different opinions on how the WP:DA process does/should work – as far as I am concerned adding the template to an article does not require discuss before a merge but is merely a request, anybody that disagrees with the merge can block it before it is done. We must all agree on the process before wording discussions can take place."
No one is claiming that discussion is required, but merely that it's a good thing to encourage — especially among the inexperienced users who are most likely to rely upon a tag's specific wording for guidance. (This was covered in the discussion that took place prior to the votes). Wording "D" appears to imply some sort of authority or previously established consensus behind the proposed merger (which must be countered to be negated), thereby encouraging only opponents of a merger to speak up. Supporters of a merger should be encouraged equally; the discussion should not be one-sided.
"2. The vote was created as a 'type' of wording vote, though it was very unclear,"
No offense, but this was clear to anyone who had read the dispute that led to the vote. I assumed that you had, given the fact that you protected the template and suggested that we vote.
For obvious reasons, I included the two diametrically opposed wordings that various users were reverting between — not every minor variation that I could think of. I assumed that the exact wording would be determined later.
I'm sorry but it certainly wasn't clear, considering that there are various ways ("types") that the wording could be written. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
Again, it was clear to anyone who read the proceeding discussion. The purpose of the vote was to settle the existing dispute (which was between two types of wording), not to create a new dispute regarding numerous slight variations. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
"but is now a different thing."
Indeed, it is. As I said, you've clouded the discussion (again, no offense).
Because it simply isn't a choice between two "types". violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
No, but that was the contested issue. The specific wording should have been determined later (and not necessarily via a vote). —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
"I strongly believe that going by 'type' is not a feasible method of organising it"
Okay, so now we have five selections. How many should we have?
As many as people wish to submit. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
Do you not recognize the inherent counterproductivity? Minor changes are routinely made, and rarely require formal discussion (let alone a vote). The goal was to determine the type of message to convey, not the precise wording (which can be adjusted in the future). —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
"given the sheer number of variations in the perceived levels of urgency and whether the next step is to merge or discuss."
The next step can be to merge, if the situation is clear-cut and the user experienced. If both criteria are met, the encouragement (not mandate) to discuss can simply be disregarded. Otherwise, it can be followed. Again, I stated this in the pre-vote discussion (not to imply that you must agree).
But surely that leads to confusion? "Do I have to discuss this or can I just do it?". violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
Anyone who's that unfamiliar with the merger process should seek advice before proceeding. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
"As for the current vote, it should be approval voting in order to be properly interpreted."
A voter's first choice should carry the most weight, but I agree that other choices should be counted.
"3. If the template had a two-level text system (as here) the wording would need to be different."
. . . . which it was, before we eliminated the two-level version (as a size compromise between it and the italic text version). Several people continued to oppose the use of a colored box, but no one advocated a return to the two-level design.
Again, I assumed that you were aware of this from having read the discussion.
It doesn't really matter, as I think that version is better, and, in order to be standardised, should be the same format as other such templates. But then, others can disagree as per the WP:TS proposal. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
That decision will be reached at later point in time, and should take the result of this style vote into account. At the moment, we're debating "colored box and icon" vs. "no colored box and icon."
And for the record, I believe that the {{merge}} templates should be single-level; such a format is equally visible, but considerably less obtrusive (particularly in specific article sections). —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
"Point number one is a fundamental problem with this and should be determed at WP:DA first."
Again, suggesting discussion is not the same as mandating it.
We shouldn't suggest discussion, we should suggest disputing the merge. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
I obviously disagree, and view your preferred wording as POV. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
"To quote from WP:DA:
If you find a pair of articles that appear to be duplicates, merge them! If you can't carry out the merger yourself, it is suggested that you put the following at the top of each:
{{merge|Other article}}
This informs future visitors to the pages of your request that they be merged.
At no point does that mention discussion or consensus-building"
Are you suggesting that these are bad ideas? In practice, such discussions are taking place every day.
Why would you take it like that? As I've said previously the wording must reflect what it says at WP:DA, whichever of the two need updating. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
WP:DA doesn't discourage discussion at any stage, but I agree that it should be updated to actively encourage it. I don't agree, however, that this is a prerequisite to implementing any of the wordings in question. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
"and the correct way to counteract it is:"
If you disagree with a "merge" indication then you can remove it, or change the template from
{{merge|Article Name}} to {{MergeDisputed|Article Name}} and discuss it on this page until consensus is reached.
Only then do you discuss it"
Only then is one required to discuss it before proceeding with a merger. Frankly, the notion that communication (on an optional basis) should be limited to dispute situations is troubling.
The people that particularly want to discuss it will be the ones that want to dispute it, thus using the disputed tag. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
In many instances, a merger isn't actively disputed, but someone is unwilling to support it until the proponent's reasoning has been explained. Your preferred wording implies that the proponent's suggestion has tentatively been deemed appropriate by some unspecified authority, placing the onus on others to disprove its logic. On the contrary, everyone should be invited to express his/her pertinent viewpoints (support, opposition and neutrality), and to ask whatever questions come to mind. Hence the simple "Discuss" link. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
"though I think it should be done on the article talk page, not 'this' (ie. WP:DA) page."
Of course it should, and this is standard procedure (regardless of how the poorly worded WP:DA reads).
Again, WP:DA needs to reflect this. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
Agreed. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
"The wording must therefore reflect this procedure insofar as it will be done unless somebody actively disputes it and not that it is currently undergoing discussion."
Someone actually has to perform the merger, and the mere presence of an undisputed (but unsupported) {{merge}} tag doesn't result in an automatic implementation of this "suggestion." Wording "D" calls upon opponents to condemn a merger (implying that it has been deemed advisable), but it doesn't invite supporters to advocate it. This is unfair to both sides. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
No, but only because the person that looks at it might disagree with the merge. We do not need support for a merge to be stated unless there are objections to it. Yes, it is nice to see such support, but not necessary. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
We don't need any discussion to proceed with a merger, but it often is extremely beneficial. A simple "Discuss" link encourages equal participation from all interested parties, but mandates none. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)

I don't agree with violet/riga. I doubt anyone doesn't think a merge can be carried out without discussion. By the fact that someone decides to tag an article, rather than do it, should lessen the urgency of the matter, however, and encourage discussion. Discussion is not required, but sometimes preferable. None of the wording choices go against the spirit of WP:DA (which is not policy) and, as far as I can see, it suggests: If you find a pair of articles that appear to be duplicates, merge them! If you can't carry out the merger yourself, it is suggested that you put the following at the top of each: {{merge|Other article}} This informs future visitors to the pages of your request that they be merged. [emphasis mine]. Do we need yet another wording choice?: Merging this article or section with other article title is requested. (Discuss) I don't think so. The point really is the type of wording. Authoritative: Merge this article, or Request: Merging this article may be desired. (Discuss). I believe if you're not going to merge it right now, request it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)

Thank you, DoubleBlue, for summarizing the issue in such a clear, eloquent manner. I attempted to convey this information, but I doubt that I was as successful. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)
I fully agrewe with User:DoubleBlue here. I object to any of the "authoritative" versions, ones with "should" and "will be" in them -- and I say this as an editor who recently did several merges without posting any tempaltes of any kind. DES 4 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)
Likewise, I have merged articles without proposal or discussion. In fact, I've formally declared myself a Mergist. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)
As I've tried to say many times, WP:DA must be in line with this template. Should we encourage discussion (particularly of support) or should we just go with the current situation of the tag being changed to {{mergedisputed}}? If discussion is suggested (by the wording of this template) then WP:DA requires clarification. However, I think that it is much more important to figure that out at WP:DA and then update this template rather than the other way around. Should WP:DA become more like WP:RM? Perhaps not, but right now it seems that people are suggesting wordings that are not in line with changing the tag to mergedisputed or with the wording of WP:DA. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
Again, I don't see how the wordings in question defy WP:DA (which does not discourage discussion at any level). And as I explained, a proposed merger can strongly warrant discussion, even in the absence of outright dispute. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
I just thought of an excellent example (aside from the type of situation that I described above). When the {{merge}} tag is used, the merger proponent has not specified which article to retain. In many cases, this is not obvious (hence the lack of specificity), and absolutely should be discussed. This does not necessarily involve a dispute (and certainly isn't an objection to the proposed merger), but it's a matter that often needs to be addressed. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)
In that situation a person has seen the need for merging but not said which way it should be, quite probably because they don't know which would be best. It would therefore be the person that sees the request that decides. Yes, that can go into discussion, but WP:DA does not say anything about that. It is not right to imply that it should be discussed when WP:DA does not say so. Yes, it can be suggested (and may be advisable) but it is usual only to discuss it when it is disputed. That's the whole point of the mergedisputed tag. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your claim that "it is usual only to discuss it when it is disputed" simply isn't true. This should be explicitly mentioned on the WP:DA page, but that fact that it isn't doesn't preclude an open-ended discussion invitation, which is NOT a mandate. A simple "Discuss" link does not imply that anything should be discussed, but merely makes it clear that users are welcome to express all pertinent viewpoints — none of which have been deemed the default. Discussion always is welcome on this site; we don't need WP:DA's permission. (Inexperienced users, however, do need to be informed of this, and should not be misled to believe that the mere insertion of a {{merge}} tag results in a formal verdict that requires appeal.) —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
These wordings are in line with WP:DA. It says go ahead and merge or put up a tag requesting it. In no way do these wordings conflict with that. If you want to change WP:DA, that discussion belongs there, not here. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 21:10 (UTC)
It says to replace the tag with the mergedisputed tag if you disagree, not to leave it there while it is being discussed. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)
And one can certainly replace the tag with {{mergedisputed}} if there is disagreement. No change. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
Again, discussion != dispute. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)

Right, how can I get you to understand this?

Merging this article or section with other article title may be desirable. (Discuss)

To me that implies that it must be discussed, which you agree is not necessary. The whole idea of WP:DA is that someone suggests a merge and it should only not go ahead if it is disputed. By all means discuss it, but that is not part of the WP:DA process and some of the wordings imply that it is. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you're the only person who has conveyed such an interpretation. No offense, but I don't understand how providing a simple "Discuss" link remotely implies that discussion is anything more than optional. And of course, anyone who's experienced enough to proceed with a merger sans discussion will realize this.
Especially puzzling is the fact that you initially advocated using the word "suggested" as a talk page link, thereby implying that every merger has been suggested on the talk page by its original proponent. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)
well if you think a link "Discuss" implies a command, how about changing it to "You may want to discuss this proposal on the relevant talk page" where talk page will be a link? DES 5 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
The previous wording was "This request may be discussed on the article's talk page." This was shortened to "(Discuss)" to reduce the template's size, and I believe that this was an improvement. —Lifeisunfair 5 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of the WP:DA process. I really can't think of any way in which to further explain what I'm saying as you are clearly unwilling to separate what you think should happen and what does actually happen/what is suggested at WP:DA. I'll try one last time: Mergers are tagged with {{merge}} and only need discussion if they are disputed. The tag should explicitly say that the merger will happen unless it is disputed. That is simply how it works, and there isn't even a need for a link to the talk page (or any discussion to be going on) let alone one that implies that it needs to be talked about. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 08:49 (UTC)
Mergers only happen if somebody does them. It is usually a good idea to discuss a merger first on talk or to wait a while after placing the tag. If you merge and then there is disagreement and everything has to be reversed then you've wasted a lot of time. --MarSch 5 July 2005 12:40 (UTC)
Sorry but I really am fully aware of all that, but discussion is not mentioned at WP:DA. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be discussed - I'm saying that we can't have the template saying (implying) that it should and the WP:DA page not even mentioning it. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 13:49 (UTC)
Actually, WP:DA says: "use the talk pages to discuss how to merge articles where it's not obvious whether or how the articles should be merged". DoubleBlue (Talk) 5 July 2005 14:21 (UTC)
I definitely have read that instruction before, but I completely forgot about it. Violet/riga actually had me convinced that so such text existed (an honest oversight, I'm sure), and I didn't bother to check. —Lifeisunfair 5 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
"I'm fully aware of the WP:DA process."
I thought that you were familiar with the description page (which you evidently have deemed a sacrosanct authority on the subject), but DoubleBlue has demonstrated otherwise.
"I really can't think of any way in which to further explain what I'm saying as you are clearly unwilling to separate what you think should happen and what does actually happen/what is suggested at WP:DA."
You are unwilling to separate what does happen and what you think is suggested at WP:DA.
"I'll try one last time: Mergers are tagged with {{merge}} and only need discussion if they are disputed."
As I've explained, many (not all, but many) undisputed mergers need discussion. It turns out that this is mentioned (falling under the category of "how the articles should be merged") at WP:DA.
And again, discussion always is welcome on this site, but inexperienced users often don't realize this.
"The tag should explicitly say that the merger will happen unless it is disputed."
In my opinion, that's a POV, misleading oversimplification of the merger process. Why do you disrespect other people's opinions?
"That is simply how it works, and there isn't even a need for a link to the talk page (or any discussion to be going on) let alone one that implies that it needs to be talked about."
1. As I've stated, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the "Discuss" link; in my assessment, it does not imply that discussion is mandatory.
2. You've yet to explain why you initially advocated using the word "suggested" as a talk page link, thereby implying that every merger has been suggested on the talk page by its original proponent.
3. I'm somewhat offended by your apparent belief that my responses to your viewpoints must stem from a lack of comprehension on my part. ("Right, how can I get you to understand this? . . . I really can't think of any way in which to further explain what I'm saying . . . I'll try one last time . . . ") I fully comprehend what you've said, but I respectfully disagree. —Lifeisunfair 5 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
Where it says "use the talk pages to discuss how to merge articles where it's not obvious whether or how the articles should be merged" it clearly says "where it's not..." not "when possible". Most tags that appear on the main article page are discussed to some level, and it is common for people to assume that there will be discussion. All I'm saying is that:
  1. The template must reflect that the merge will happen
  2. WP:DA must reflect that the tag should be changed to {{mergedisputed}} by a person that disagrees with the merge
If the tag is not changed to {{mergedisputed}} when someone comes along to the article it should be assumed that the merge is (currently) accepted by all. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)
"Where it says 'use the talk pages to discuss how to merge articles where it's not obvious whether or how the articles should be merged' it clearly says 'where it's not...' not 'when possible'."
1. You previously claimed that "discussion is not mentioned at WP:DA."
2. Again, no one is arguing that mergers always should be discussed. (Please stop attacking that straw man.) I'm arguing that the existence of the option to discuss a proposed merger (even if only to inquire as to "how the articles should be merged") should be made clear.
3. Please explain why you initially advocated using the word "suggested" as a talk page link, thereby implying that every merger has been suggested on the talk page by its original proponent.
"Most tags that appear on the main article page are discussed to some level, and it is common for people to assume that there will be discussion."
It's common for inexperienced users to not realize that their questions and comments are welcome. Experienced users, conversely, know that a clear-cut merger can proceed without discussion. (Of course, my preferred wording doesn't state otherwise.)
"All I'm saying is that:
"1. The template must reflect that the merge will happen"
Your preferred wording implies that an unspecified authority has officially sanctioned the merger, thereby placing the onus on lowly dissenters to disprove its merit. It fails to convey the fact that supporters of a merger are entitled to express their reasoning, and also implies that a merger definitely won't transpire if it's disputed by anyone (which simply isn't true).
I believe that none of the various possibilities (merger, no merger, different merger) should automatically be assigned precedence. I advocate the use of neutral wording that simply states that a merger has been suggested and invites any and all pertinent input.
"2. WP:DA must reflect that the tag should be changed to {{mergedisputed}} by a person that disagrees with the merge"
Who's arguing against that?
"If the tag is not changed to {{mergedisputed}} when someone comes along to the article it should be assumed that the merge is (currently) accepted by all."
Again, discussion != dispute. Many uncontested mergers require discussion. —Lifeisunfair 5 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)
My head hurts from banging it on the wall too much. It's pointless responding. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)
Yeah, how dare we question your wisdom?! Obviously, we must be too thickheaded to "understand." —Lifeisunfair 5 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)

Lifeisunfair, do you _have_ to be so lengthy in your replies? This discussion, if it can still be called that, has gotten completely side-tracked. Current voting suggests that there is no way that we are going to agree on how to group wordings together in types. I think we also all agree on the process, so what do we disagree over? Whether the merge will go through if this template sits on a page and that its wording should reflect that. I agree that after sticking this template on a page and getting no reaction, then apparently it is okay to merge. But this is not the point. You can always do a merger. The point of this template is to let people know of your intentions and gauge their opinions. So basically you want to invite them to discuss this on talk, right? I don't think a wording like "This article will be merged with {1}, unless there are objections." is very constructive or conducive to discussion. It doesn't really matter what WP:duplicate articles says about merging. Merging is a big change and should be discussed. We all seem to be aware of this and to agree to this. Violet/riga, you can't be serious when you say "At no point does that(WP:DA) mention discussion or consensus-building and the correct way to counteract it is:". Counteract discussion or consensus-building? I'm just going to pretend you didn't say that. What points did I miss? --MarSch 6 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)

"Lifeisunfair, do you _have_ to be so lengthy in your replies?"
I'm tempted to type a one-word response ("yes" or "no"), but I shall provide a sincere answer to your question:
I continue typing until I believe that I've conveyed my thoughts as effectively as I'm able to. No one is forcing you to read my replies (or anyone else's), so feel free to skip past anything that you deem too "lengthy." To be clear, no sarcasm or hostility is present in this advice.
"Current voting suggests that there is no way that we are going to agree on how to group wordings together in types."
That idea was abandoned well over 2 ½ days ago.
I agree with the remainder of the opinions that you expressed. —Lifeisunfair 6 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)


Additional style comments

I concur, and I wouldn't expect a great deal of controversy. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)
  • If I might be able to offer a suggestion, I'd like to submit my own little idea. I realise this is a little late in the game so to say, but many people seem to object to the boxes because they are to much "in your face" and takes to much room. On the other hand, people are concerned that an italized text will blend into the article to much. I suggest we take the simplistic approach. Here is my idea:


The text suggesting a merger is displayed in this manner.

I think this is a good compromise? Comments anyone? And again, I'm sorry I am coming in this late in the game. gkhan July 6, 2005 10:17 (UTC)

Firstly, you should be made aware that style "Y" already is a size compromise between style "X" and a two-level colored box that was more than twice the size of style "Y."
Secondly, while your design is a perfectly valid variation, I don't see how it would satisfy anyone who objects to the size or colored boxing of style "Y," as both of these elements remain.
The primary issue at hand is whether or not to use a single-level colored shaded box (be it mine, yours or someone else's). If style "Y" prevails (which is far from certain), its exact design will not be etched in stone, and will be subject to further discussion/revision. (Your version certainly could be considered.) Until then, however, we need to determine the basic type of layout that we'll be using ("colored shaded box" or "no colored shaded box"). Then we can consider any number of potential variations. Agreed? —Lifeisunfair 6 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)
What I was trying to do was to make it a little more discrete since that is what most people seem to be objecting to, that the box stood out too much. It is not coloured, it doesn't contain an image, and it does, in my opinon blend more nicely in the article. This is different from the other styles suggested, and I think it is a good compromise. There is a difference in style between a grayscale box and a coloured one, a grayscale one is alot less, well..., "alarming" if you know what I mean. Surely you must agree that there is quite a difference between
The text suggesting a merger is displayed in this manner.
and
The text suggesting a merger is displayed in this manner.
when placed in an article. It was an attempt at trying to reach some sort of consensus since, by looking at the poll, none can possibly reached with the options presented. I do think there is a difference and I was interested if others could comment. I realised that the design wasn't etched in stone and that this poll was not about that. I simply tried to work out a way that both parties can agree to. I do not appriciate being talked down too. gkhan July 6, 2005 19:28 (UTC)
I was not talking down to you. You requested comments (a desire that you've reiterated), and I provided some. I referred to your design as "perfectly valid," so I don't know why you were offended, but I apologize for any misunderstanding.
Yes, your version is significantly different, and perhaps some people might prefer it. It does not, however, address the main issue of contention: "shaded box" vs. "no shaded box." Most people are not objecting to the box's colour or to the presence of the icon; they're objecting to the existence of the box — any box.
Frankly, there isn't a compromise to be reached between the two diametrically opposed layouts (the latter of which already is a size compromise). We aren't going to establish an overwhelming consensus, and instead must hope for a rough consensus (60% or more). Failing that, a simple majority will have to suffice. Then the winning design can be tweaked to suit as many people's tastes as possible.
To be clear, I am not disparaging your design or belittling your efforts. Please don't take offense. —Lifeisunfair 6 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
I'm sorry I sounded a little harsh, that was certainly not my intention. I was just upset that you seemed to ignore what was the main point of my suggestion, even though I now realise I wasn't entirely clear about it. So I apologise. I was way to rough, and I should have known better. However I still don't agree that this isn't a compromise, but I would like to hear from some people advocating the simpler style, see what they think. gkhan July 6, 2005 22:48 (UTC)
  • I for one, would consider this shaded box style perfectly acceptable. But then i prefered the colored box and image style to the simple italic text. I don't know if any of thse who prefer the italic text would consider this shaded box style an acceptable compromise. But perhaps Lifeisunfair has not correctly understood what their priorities are. If anyone who supported the italic text style could compromise on this, it would be very helpful to say so. if not, then Lifeisunfair is correct, and the detailed decision will wait until after the broad style choice. DES 6 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)
    • Slowly, this conversation is finally starting to realize what I've been saying. Everybody deserves to be able to make these look how they want. The problem is, the proposed box format described above forces itself on everyone. The current, simple text format is just a default and is easily transformed into whatever format an individual likes, using CSS and user stylesheets. I explained how to do this to Lifeisunfair, and I invite those that like the box format to try my solution out. There are nearly unlimited ways each person can alter the look of the message - making it as bold and big as you want or even removing it from view altogether. -- Netoholic @ 6 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)
      • I've always understood what you have been saying. I don't prefer the box style for me, I prefer the box style as the default. That's why I asked before if it wasn't possible to use CSS to make the box the default and allow you to change your stylesheet to get rid of it if you don't like it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
        Yes, this is fully possible. For Template:Disambig, the double-bar top and bottom borders are defined in MediaWiki:Monobook.css. That style is the default, but is easy changed by the individual. I doubt we can do this for the merge templates since there are so many opposed to even the concept of the obnoxious colored box. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 01:38 (UTC)
        • Here i disagree with Netoholic, on several counts. First, there is considerable value in a single standard look (or a small menu of looks) for such templates. Not an absolutely overriding value, but considerable, IMO. Secondly, there is value in having a singel easy tool to accomplish this, insted of having each editor reinvent the wheel. Look at the many templates listed on Wikipedia:Template messages, most of which including formatting as well as information. Thirly, instructing the average editor to use CSS and user stylesheets is unrealistic, and user sheets are inapproprite anyway unless I have misunderstood. part of the point si to control how such msgs apepar to users, that is non-editors. The appearence might vary by page, it should not IMO vary drastically by user (allowing for differences caused by browser and display settings). DES 6 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)
          • If, as you say, the point is to control how this looks to non-editors, then we should hide these messages or at least make them as subtle as possible by default. I do not see any considerable value at all by forcing an obnoxious colored box in the face of every reader here on Wikipedia. When this exact conversation has come up before, like for Template:Spoiler and Template:Disambig, the decision was to go with a fairly subtle, simple text, approach. If you want a particular template to jump out at you, modify your CSS. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)
            • I agree that article page notices should be unobtrusive as possible. However, the merge notice can be very helpful to the ordinary reader to see another article with similar or related content and also encourage people to get involved. Someone mentioned before that there are ~2000 articles waiting to be merged. If you can do it under CSS, as I suspected, then all the better so people can modify the style to make them more or less "obnoxious". DoubleBlue (Talk) 7 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)
              • The merge notices are no less useful as simple italic text separated by line breaks. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)
                • My point was, of course, that they do not need to be so unobtrusive because they are actually useful to a casual reader as well as editors (and potential editors!). DoubleBlue (Talk) 8 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)
                  • I agree with this. I am not a regular editor (most of the handful of edits on my account were from when my visiting friend used my computer without logging out) but I often follow the merge links to other interesting articles. I usually load the other page in the background in a separate Firefox tab. Then I switch over after I finish the first article. I definitely preferred the box with the picture because it stood out from the rest of the text and I didn't have to read it to know what it was. I keep getting the current version confused with the actual articles. This is an inconvenience and an annoyance because I know it doesn't have to be this way. I should mention that I am visually impaired. I hope others realize that this sort of thing can be important to people for reasons other than decoration. I just asked my wife (who has 20/20 eyesight) and she also prefers the colored box. Gemberling 8 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)


General comments

  • I'd like to let each "merge-applying" editor have their choice of wording and icon. I'll take template:mergebx, myself. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 4, 2005 01:20 (UTC)
Contrary to your philosophy, we cannot have multiple, redundant versions to suit everyone's whim. I'd rather settle for the wording and style that I oppose than implement your plan. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)
It is preferable, I think, to have a standard, simple, brief template on article page and then each editor can use their own words on the talk page. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)
  • I strongly object to the format (or lack thereof) of these votes. There are too many options and the format was not discussed ahead of time. Also, there is no end time for these votes, meaning any losing side will just perpetuate this. Please see Wikipedia:Survey guidelines for some good advice. -- Netoholic @ July 4, 2005 02:47 (UTC)
Again, I'll point out that those are guidelines, not policies.
As you can see from the above discussion, I agree that there are far too many options, but we're stuck with them. I meant to stipulate a one-week duration (the longer of the two standards), and I thank you for reminding me of that.
I sincerely hope that we can go about this in a civil manner, irrespective of the outcomes. As you're aware, I informed you (and everyone else who had expressed a pertinent opinion — not merely those with whom I agreed) of the voting, so I hope that my good faith is clear. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)
I am disturbed by your attitude towards guidelines which provide good advice. I can promise you'll run into further disputes if you disregard them with a flippant "those are not policies". That being said, I still object to the fact that you alone are dictating the terms and format of these votes. So long as you are in that position, it will be hard to respect them. -- Netoholic @ July 4, 2005 03:52 (UTC)
I'm not implying that guidelines should be disregarded; I'm saying that they needn't always be followed to the letter. Otherwise, they would be policies. Yes, they provide potentially useful advice, but not ironclad rules that apply to every situation. You previously deleted a vote (three times) that failed to abide by all of these guidelines, and it's in that context that I stress their nonbinding nature to you.
I'm not alone in setting the terms and format; others have taken part (including violet/riga, DES and Dan) and I specified a duration (per your advice). If you have any other specific criticisms, you're more than welcome to express them. —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this vote is a special circumstance and shouldn't follow the Wikipedia:Survey guidelines? In lieu of any specific reasons, guidelines should be followed. They should absolutely not be disregarded as you are doing repeatedly. -- Netoholic @ July 4, 2005 04:38 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Guidelines are meant to guide, not to strictly dictate rules. I haven't disregarded them; I merely haven't followed all of them to the letter, because I prefer to take a slightly different approach.
I also have considered outside feedback, and everyone else's concerns regarding the format have been addressed, evidently to their satisfaction.
Looking beyond formalities, do you have any specific, content-related complaints? —Lifeisunfair 4 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)
To be fair, it does seem that a week to sort out the groundrules for this vote would have been preferable considering all the dispute. Nonetheless, I believe that the vote is valid as constructed. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)


Request for comment (round 2)

Round one of the voting has closed. It was held from 3 July 2005 at 18:30 (UTC) until 10 July 2005 at 18:30 (UTC). The goal was to establish both the wording and the visual style of the three primary "merge" templates: {{merge}}, {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}}.

The complete voting archive may be viewed.


Style vote result

Thirty-one ballots were cast: nineteen for style "Y," eleven for style "X" and one for neither. If the "neither" vote is counted, style "Y" received 61.29% of votes. If the "neither" vote is not counted, style "Y" received 63.33% of votes. Under either system, style "Y" prevails with a rough consensus.


Wording vote result

Twenty-three people cast ballots. Among "first choices," wording "E" received 11 votes (one vote shy of a majority). Wordings "A" and "B" each received 4 votes. Wording "D" received 3 votes. Wording "C" received 1 vote.

Upon factoring the secondary choices (each valued at ½ vote) wording "E" received 13 ½ votes. Wording "B" received 7 ½ votes. Wording "A" received 6 votes. Wording "D" received 3 ½ votes. Wording "C" received 2 ½ votes.

Having received a plurality of votes, wording "E" prevails for the time being. Because it did not receive a majority of votes, a one-week runoff vote shall be held between it and the second-place wording "B." Voters who selected either wording "E" or wording "B" as their first choices need not vote again (unless they've changed their minds). All others (including previous voters and those who did not vote) are invited to vote now.


Runoff vote — Wording

Because no wording received a majority of votes, a runoff vote between the two most popular wordings ("B" and "E") shall be held from 10 July 2005 at 22:00 (UTC) until 17 July 2005 at 22:00 (UTC).

Voters who selected either wording "B" or wording "E" as their first choices need not vote again (unless they've changed their minds). All others (including previous voters and those who did not vote) are invited to vote now.


Wording "B":

Merging this article or section with other article title may be desirable.   (Discuss)

  • The following people preferred wording B to wording E in the earlier poll: DoubleBlue, MeltBanana, Hedley and Marsch.

Wording "E":

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with other article title.   (Discuss)

  • The following people preferred wording E to wording B in the earlier poll: Lifeisunfair, DES, James F, Tznkai, Beland, Oleg Alexandrov, Brian0918, Excession, Gemberling, Radiant, Smyth and Laura Scudder.
  • E. Radiant_>|< 12:18, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Add *Wording "B" or *Wording "E" (followed by an optional brief explanation), and sign your vote with: ~~~~
  • E I still prefer E (which I created) but B would be perfectly acceptable to me. DES 13:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


Post-vote comments — Wording

I interpret the vote as having E as a clear front runner as well. It received 11/23 first-choice votes, with A&B tied at second (well-back with only 4 votes each). If one considers that C is identical to E except for lack of "Discuss" link, that approximate wording accounts for half the votes. Among second-choice votes, A&B led with a tie of 4 each. Only B&E received third-choice votes but that's not too surprising considering there were two Authoritative choices and three Request choices. Among first-choice votes, Authoritative choices (A&D) received 7/23 votes and Request choices (B,C,&E) received 16 (70%). I think a pretty clear consensus is shown for a Request-style wording. Perhaps more improvement could be made to the wording to better satisfy the concerns of Authoritative voters (It has been requested that article or section be merged ?) but a run-off vote was promised and should be carried out. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC) [minor corrections to my wording DoubleBlue (Talk) 09:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)]

I share your assessment of the consensus. I expected the non-authoritative options to collectively prove more popular than the authoritative options, but I didn't expect one specific wording to pull so far ahead of the pack. I foresaw that wording "D" would not be terribly successful, but I expected wording "A" to receive more support than it did. (I had anticipated a runoff vote between it and either wording "B" or wording "E.") —Lifeisunfair 08:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


Post-vote comments — Style

I believe that the "neither" vote should count and that Y has 3/5 of the vote. That, i believe, only shows a preference to not have a plain-text message and, instead, mark it off in a box of some sort. I think the next step should be discussion to increase consensus in the style of the box. Perhaps the greyscale box proposed by gkhan would be better, perhaps another colour would be less obnoxious on Netoholic's eyes. Whatever. I would hope that an attempt to gain a consensus box style is the next step. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

As I previously indicated, I wholeheartedly agree that this vote merely determined the general direction that the templates will take ("box," instead of "no box"), thereby settling the edit war. Obviously, I'm partial to my design, but variations absolutely should be considered (with the goal of satisfying as many people as possible). —Lifeisunfair 08:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Merge/Voting_archive&oldid=1124079832"