Is this a good idea? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion was recently created in hopes of assisting tricky merging situations. But now that I look closer, I see that project and this project have significant overlap. While they are similar, they do seem to have very different time frames, and different methods to accomplish the same goals.

I would like to see Merges for discussion resolve things in a matter of days rather than in years. In that sense, I think that the backlog of this project could be absorbed into that process, and a quicker more streamlined way of generating merge feedback can be created. I would appreciate if any interested editors could join discussion on the talk page of that project. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two processes should be merged (haha, something ironic about mentioning that) but I think the biggest problem is lack of traffic. This might be solved by a link at the top of the WP:AFD page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? Please explain your idea further. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heck it is there already. But anyway, in essence all the mergers suffer from a severe lack of traffic, which is why they remain open so long with only a few comments. There needs to be linkage highlights. I just noticed now that proposed mergers is actually linked on the top of the AfD page (but I hadn't seen it in 2.5 years). The other place is at the top navbox of WP:AN. template:editabuselinks Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. Ok. So we need to think of another way to attract attention that is not pointy. CENT? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh - I know. The whole topic is such a vexed one....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a whole bunch of Done tags to anything that was redirecting to one of the two articles suggested to be merged. I'll leave it like this for a few days, then I'm going to remove all the finished merges. Hopefully it will clean this page up a bit and make it look a little more managed. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. Flatscan (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as we have two pages covering the same process (that is, merging articles), this would be a good time to discuss which format people prefer, and then conform the existing page to that format.

Essentially a list of mergers only, all discussion takes place on the destination article's talk page.

• By simply linking to the Talk page discussion, PM is consistent with other steps, allowing one discussion to be used throughout the process. Flatscan (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk page section
  • Merge templates on articles
  • Proposed mergers
  • Requesting outside input as described by dispute resolution, such as WP:3O, WikiProjects, and WP:RFC

For discussion of mergers actually on the page. The setup is inspired by AfD: each discussion has its own subpage that is transcluded to a log. A time limit was proposed but not implemented.

Previous discussions

• WT:Mergers for discussion, a few sections
• WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 63#Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion

Backlog

I think that the backlog has a substantial contribution from the delay in implementing mergers after consensus has been determined, which would be substantially identical between the two discussion processes. There are over 100 transclusions of {{afd-mergeto}}, which is placed when an AfD is closed as merge and removed when the article is redirected. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we archive the 2008 requests? VoltageX (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through them over the past few months, and there's only a few left. The ones still here are a little tricky, but all of them should actually be merged. I would rather see the work completed rather than brushed under the wikicarpet. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against archiving them. If the discussions are inactive or if there's a decision reached, close them. If they're active, contribute to them. As with any backlog, it's the oldest ones that need the most attention. Archiving is not a solution for this. Jafeluv (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All gone. Problem solved ;) Jafeluv (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuce. I think this page has gotten more attention in the last 4 months than it ever has. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section describing how to propose a merger, and made a little template, {{PMlink}}, to help in listing the articles. Let me know what you think. Jafeluv (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I've moved the section into a subpage so that people can say their opinion first. Jafeluv (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support including this how-to somewhere. It's significantly better than the mess (that I had a hand in writing) at Help:Merging#Proposing a merger. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I boldly added it back. The template wasn't really necessary, I guess. Feel free to tweak the wording. Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could a bot be created to list all proposed mergers here automatically (similar to the one used at RM)? It could also be used to add missing merger tags when only one page involved in the merger has been tagged. --GW… 09:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible, but considering the amount of traffic this page gets it's not really that big an inconvenience to update it manually, I think. Jafeluv (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realized that WP:Requested moves/current was populated by a bot. After cleaning up a few merge tags and merging duplicated discussions (created on both pages), I think it would be nice to have a bot to fix those. Flatscan (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, why didn't you alert me on my talk page or something? I would love to automate another Wikipedia process; just let me know what I need to keep in mind. @harej 03:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to involve some automation in this process too, but I'm not sure how. How do they use a bot over at Requested moves? How do other processes use bots to populate lists? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 06:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the bot was to take over parts humans already did. The procedure as outlined at WP:RM required that not only was there a template on the talk page where the discussion was taking place, but then it would also have to be listed on the main list. The bot was (and still is) responsible for putting it on the main list so people only have to put the requested move template on the article talk page. Likewise, for automating WP:PM lists, people would only have to put {{mergefrom}}, {{mergeto}}, etc. on articles. The bot would handle interpreting these templates and generating the list appropriately. @harej 06:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds promising. It might generate some sizable lists. August has 1400 proposed merges, and that works out to about 700ish entries, or roughly 24 a day. If lists could be generated by day and transcluded onto pages per month, it would be an easier way to browse than the category. It differs from the current use of this page tho, right now this is like a user selected list from a sea of merges. I'm not sure the effects of this change would be. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 07:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded of the instance my bot got to work generating the WP:RM list — the size of the list immediately exploded due to the wide discrepancies between the main list and where the templates were being put. People weren't adding to the list, and it showed. I am thinking that this would be an extreme example of that. Perhaps, then, a style of creating day pages like at WP:DRV is in order? @harej 07:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Could the bot also look for requests where only one page has been tagged, and automatically tag the other associated pages? --GW… 08:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I would probably standardize the page with {{mergefrom}} as the place where the discussion goes on, to keep it all in one place. I would expect no less of my RFC bot to fill in holes where appropriate, just as it does with requested moves (see [1] for example). As I usually operate my bots, entries are removed as they fulfilled. Does this mean that once a backlog is emptied, it would get deleted? @harej 09:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not deleted, but we could certainly change the format. I like the idea of having both: lists generated for each day, and a user selected list of merges needing special/specific/urgent attention. I like the mergefrom discussion standardization, and the bot adding of missing tags. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by "change the format". @harej 18:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wouldn't really change the format, it would just change the structure of this page. Instead of just being a select list, it would be a select list and a complete master list by day. It would just increase the usefulness of this page ten fold. I am all for it. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Do you think that the "select list" should be more selective, now that there will be a more comprehensive log of proposed mergers? @harej 20:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well as it stands right now it's supposed to be used for complex or controvertial merges, but it's basically used for anything people decide to add. If the description of this page was just rewritten so that everyone who uses it understands that all merges are being tracked and that only difficult cases should be added to the short list, then I would consider that selective enough. People using this page should be able to decide if it's just a regular merge or if it involves an extra level of complexity. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that organization or filtering by priority is an important feature. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would we do with {{merge}} tags (ie. ones where no direction is specified)? --GW… 16:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will figure something out for them. By the way, as a product of WP:RM automation, I changed around a lot of the templates (i.e. made some of them take on new purposes and made other ones obsolete). I just may do something similar when it comes time to automating WP:PM. I also approve of the idea of keeping around a separate, manually-updated list on this page, but it should be restricted for more urgent/tricky cases. @harej 18:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Republican-themed example of what the list would look like. Also, a list for each day would not be possible, since the template only goes by month and year. The smallest a list could be is by the month, but such a list would get large. To prevent it from getting too large, I think that it should be limited to 100 entries, with entries being added onto the list as fulfilled requests are cleared. @harej 04:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before I can even dream of automating the process, I need to point out that the several merge templates currently deployed on Wikipedia. According to Template:Merge#Merging, we have eleven merge templates. This is too diffuse to keep track of in a reasonable matter; therefore, I would like to merge it down to three templates: {{merge}}, {{mergeto}}, and {{mergefrom}}, using parameters in lieu of having separate templates for each condition. This will make the process much easier to use by people, and definitely easier to automate. @harej 23:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's sounds like a great idea. I find the only other template I come across is mergefrom-multiple, but if this can be handled through template parameters, then I think the others can safely be redirected. There's only a handful of actual articles that use them anyways. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a detailed list of the victims:

{{merge}} ← {{merge-multiple}}

{{mergefrom}} ← {{mergefrom-multiple}}, {{mergefrom-category}}, {{mergesection}}, {{mergesections}}, {{multiplemergefrom}}

{{mergeto}} ← {{mergeto-multiple}}, {{mergetomultiple-with}}, {{merge-multiple-to}}, {{mergelist}}, {{mergeto2}}, {{NorthAmMergeto}}, {{portalmerge}}

This is one of the most disorganized messes I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Unless there are more that should be added to the list, I am going to get to work. By the way, there were several merge templates that were associated with WikiProjects or something. I'm not going to touch those. @harej 06:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a great solution. I'm stoked about where you're taking this. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 13:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Too many templates at the moment, I'm fairly sure some of them fail CSD T3. As for the project specific templates, might it be worth sending a few of them to TFD? --GW… 22:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They could be. Anyways, as of this time, {{merge-multiple}} is no more (merged with {{merge}}), and {{mergeto-multiple}} and {{mergefrom-multiple}} are similarly on the way out. @harej 22:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am useless at templates but I fully support streamlining and keeping the more useful ones - ones that direct to a subheading on a talk page are good. We need as few steps as possible for editors to find these damn pages which are so under-trafficked as it is. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation for the merge templates also makes note of the split templates. Since splitting is merging in the opposite direction, would it be a good idea for the bot to note proposed article splits as well? If so, should we rename the page Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and splits? We can steal the shortcut WP:PMS from an inactive project. @harej 23:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These editing actions are definitely related, but I'm not sure that splits need listings. My impression is that splits are more easily done BOLDly due to the creation of the split article, which has no active editors or content to incorporate. I think that more discussion should precede splits to avoid forking and attribution issues created by repeated splitting/merging, but I doubt there is consensus for it. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If others agreed, then there would be a consensus. @harej 06:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I'm not sure I see a good reason to keep the two seperate, and perhaps expanding the scope of this page slightly would attract more attention. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 13:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that splits and merges are a lot alike. Both involve concerns about article scope and size, both require moving existing content over articles and preserving the link to the source article. However, I think we should see how the merging thing works out with the bot first, and then think about what else to include. In my opinion, AfD merges could be included on this page as well (see pages that transclude {{afd-mergeto}}). Currently, when an AfD is closed as "merge", the article is only tagged with the template by the closing admin, and will stay as is until the heat death of the universe unless someone comes and actually performs the merger. It would be great to have a subsection for listing those mergers - they're pretty straightforward since there's already a consensus to perform them, but people just need to know that they exist. Jafeluv (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. The AfD merges should get a special list, because those are a little more important than regular merges in terms of community necessity. AfD discussions should be carried through as quick as they can. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can make a separate list for them, or make them stand out somehow. @harej 18:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]