I thought it would be nice to use {{{1}}} as a parameter. It would contain the name of the page that the referring page should be merged with. Sadly, it would mean changing around the message on all pages presently for merge. Does anyone have a suggestion how we could implement this change? JFW | T@lk 17:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with what you've said and propose this new version:

Perhaps the second line could do with a little work (maybe linking to an article on how to change it to the dispute template. As for converting all the existing ones then either it'll take few people ages to do it manually or a bot could be used. violet/riga (t) 17:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A simpler way to do the transition is to add a new template, {{mergewith|PAGE}}. The new template could then be phased in gradually (by being used by new merges). cesarb 03:44, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm putting radiant's version at template:coolmerge. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 01:20 (UTC)

I like the new images (and the box), but I think that mergefrom and mergewith should have different images. The purpose of the image is that you don't need to read the template. As it stands they are simply too similar. --MarSch 30 June 2005 12:58 (UTC)

They are different and I think they look fine personally. Elfguy 30 June 2005 13:33 (UTC)

MarSch: Do you mean that {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}} should have different images than each other? I originally planned this, but I couldn't think of a way to create a distinction that actually represented the disparity. I could simply reverse the image (by retaining the blue arrow instead of the red one). That wouldn't really convey the template's concept any differently, but it would be a visible indicator of sorts. Assuming that the consensus is to use these images, the question then becomes: which template should get the new image? —Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 14:21 (UTC)

yes, I meant {{mergeto}} of course. Mergewith is a redirect to merge.--MarSch 30 June 2005 14:23 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even notice that you typed "mergewith." I was verifying that Elfguy's apparent interpretation was incorrect. (He cited the fact that {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}} already share a different image than {{merge}}, but that isn't what you meant.) —Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 14:34 (UTC)

Perhaps by making the arrow or the diamond differ in size, we could distinguish, The big diamond might also be a square. --MarSch 30 June 2005 14:37 (UTC)

It would be very easy to create a clear difference between the two images, but can we convey "merge from" with one and "merge to" with the other? I don't think so, but a purely arbitrary modification might not be a bad idea. In my opinion, the most logical design would have a red diamond on the left and a blue arrow on the right (as I originally planned for the alternate image). —Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 14:57 (UTC)

The article on which the template sits should have a bigger part in the picture. You can quickly see whether it is an arrow (needs to be merged somewhere else) or whether it is a box (should receive info from somewhere). Nothing arbitrary about it. --MarSch 30 June 2005 15:20 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean! Yes, that would make sense. Do you care for this attempt? —Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 15:54 (UTC)

Not really. --MarSch 30 June 2005 17:01 (UTC)

To be honest, I feel the same way.

I began with this (which I thought looked much better, independent of any particular meaning), but then I read your idea about making the box bigger and the arrow smaller.

Perhaps having the red object on the left represent the current content would be sufficient. —Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 17:38 (UTC)

Please put that up temporarily. What I think is that the redness of the arrow signifies that it is somehow an error or bad and should be made to go away. If the diamond is red it loses this significance. But what about a square instead of a diamond. It would be bigger and fit in the same space. --MarSch 30 June 2005 18:04 (UTC)

To me, the redness represents emphasis, but not of the negative variety. (It means, "this is what you're looking at now.")

I tried the square idea earlier, and I wasn't able to produce satisfactory results. The problem is that it removes the protruding point, thereby countering the size gain and eliminating the semi-symmetrical uniformity that we've maintained thus far. (You're welcome to try, of course.) —Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 18:19 (UTC)

This conversation is moot, since the #Template style section above there is no consensus that these template require anything more than simple text. -- Netoholic @ July 1, 2005 14:26 (UTC)