Template talk:Afd-merge to

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 mergeto. 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)

Discussion continued at Template talk:Afd-mergefrom.

Added a category parameter to supress cats.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:50 20 January 2007 (GMT).

"If the merger is not completed promptly, this article might be re-nominated for deletion."

Shouldn't this sentence be removed, given that
1. There is no deadline.
2. A page that should be merged should not be re-nominated for deletion...because it should just be merged. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

While there is no deadline, any article properly tagged with this template has been nominated for deletion and failed to achieve consensus that it should remain a separate article. The lack of a prompt merger is not a valid deletion rationale, but it is likely to lead to the article's re-nomination for whatever reason it was nominated in the first place. (And because consensus can change, the new deletion request might succeed.) The wording in question serves as a warning of that. —David Levy 04:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the explanation. But if the sentence is intended as a warning, isn't it a bit instruction-creepy? It's a matter of course that the article can be renominated for deletion, just like any article can be nominated. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone knows that, though. Someone might mistakenly believe that the decision to merge is permanent and sacrosanct (with this tag's presence preventing further deletion nominations), so the text informs users that this is not so (and that delaying the merger is not a good idea). —David Levy 18:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should be removed. Any article at any time might be nominated for deletion, so there's no need to point it out specifically, particlularly as this leads to people using the wording as justification for AfD nomination. I have seen several cases of this in the last few weeks, the latest being this. If a merge isn't performed promptly then the actions to be taken by a concerned editor should be either (and vastly preferably) to simply do the merge, or to convert the article to a redirect, which preserves the history so that someone else can do the merge. There shouldn't be any encouragement to renominate articles for deletion just because an editor can't be bothered to perform the merge him/herself. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've previously encountered only one other editor under that (easily rectified) misconception, so I don't think that the problem is terribly widespread.

The warning isn't intended to serve as encouragement to renominate the article, though I agree that it could be interpreted as such.

Perhaps we could modify the wording (to address both of these concerns) instead of removing it. —David Levy 22:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

When I first expressed my concern about this phrase a few months back I couldn't get a discussion off the ground. I totally agree with Phil here. The best solution is to do the merge yourself if you're concerned instead of wasting time discussing a deletion. Other options are to perform a redirect and to point the editors of the other article to the history, or, if keeping the page in mainspace is causing problems for some reason or if the merge is taking particularly long (8-12 months), move it to the a subpage of the target page with a similar note. (You could also notify interested editors or WikiProject.) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this advice. But again, the text in question is not intended to serve as a recommendation to re-nominate an article for deletion (hence the word "might" instead of "should"); it's a warning of something that is likely to occur. If someone believes that a merger is simply taking too long, that's an invalid deletion rationale (and should be recognized as such by the closing administrator). But if someone believes that a previous decision to merge was incorrect, it's entirely reasonable for him/her to re-nominate the article for deletion, especially if opinions were mixed and/or it now appears that the merger will not be as straightforward and practical as previously believed.

Again, I do understand how the wording could be mistaken for a recommendation to re-nominate articles for deletion instead of following the better procedures described above, but don't see why we shouldn't attempt to clarify the warning instead of removing it completely. —David Levy 18:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this warning is any more useful on an article that has had a "merge" decision at AfD than on any other article. In fact it is less relevant than it would be on an article that has never been discussed at AfD at all, because the decision has already been made to keep the content - all that's left to do is organise the content appropriately. Using your logic we should simply place a warning on the top of every article in Wikipedia saying "this article might be nominated for deletion". I can't remember which article it was, but I remember seeing a few weeks ago an article renominated at AfD only hours after the merge decision, because an editor interpreted this template to mean that closing admins run an on-demand merging service. It would be much better to say on the template, "if you do not wish this article to remain as a separate article then please merge it to the agreed target". The current wording encourages people to think that there is someone out there who is responsible for doing what you want to be done, whereas the Wikipedia way is that if you see that something should have been done, but hasn't, you do it yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that doesn't accurately reflect my logic. The key difference is that none of those other articles contain a prominent tag indicating that a decision to not delete the content has been reached. As noted above, the idea is to stress the fact that said decision is not permanent and sacrosanct (with this tag's presence preventing further deletion nominations).

Please see below for my suggested re-wording. —David Levy 01:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

While the page may not serve as a recommendation for a new deletion nomination, it is frequently taken as such. Keeping it as a general warning when the deletion policy already explains any article can be nominated at any time, makes it superfluous and likely confusing. It's also an easy target for abuse. People who don't want to see the material kept will simply keep silent so no one remembers to perform the merge and subsequently nominate it because of WP:NOEFFORT. If there is anything we should do, it is to make it clear that once a merge consensus is reached, it should be followed until a convincing argument arises that wasn't at the previous debate. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How about the following wording:

If you find that action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion.

That still conveys that re-nomination is possible, but it does so in a manner that discourages it. —David Levy 01:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think this wording supports the common consensus on the issue. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• So do I, so I've changed it. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Date this template?

I'm looking to go through the backlog on this template, oldest first, but unfortunately, there is no structure in place to do this efficiently from the back. Can a structure be built for this in order to categorize AFD merges by month like other backlogs? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk page discussion

Is there a means to add the specific discussion header for talk page of the article being merged to? If not, can there be? Thanks - wolf 16:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

There is the grossly under-used Afd-merge from for the article page, which is almost universally missing from the Afd-merge to proposals I've been looking at. C'mon guys - label both pages, as per protocol, to appropriately notify interested editors! Klbrain (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, now I see that the Afd-merge to goes on the talk page, unlike the standard merge to which is on the article page ... Klbrain (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2022 (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)

Rephrase

I propose a rephrasing of the message in the template as the current message simply sucks:

This article was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 August 2025 with a consensus to merge the content into the article Second. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use the destination article's talk page. (August 2025)

• It doesn't link to the merging instructions.
• The date is shown twice.
• "If you find that such action has not been taken promptly" yeah of course it hasn’t been taken promptly, otherwise the template wouldn't be there. Duh.
• "consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion"... why would any sane person want to create a second nomination when the first one was already closed in favour of deletion?
• The very first sentence doesn't say what the issue is or even why the banner is there.

My solution:

This article is currently being merged as a result of a deletion discussion. It was nominated for deletion, but the consensus was to merge it into Second as an alternative to deletion. You can implement the merge by following the merging instructions and the resolution reached. (28 August 2025)

Thoughts? FaviFake (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to add the merge instructions (although step 4 of the merge instructions shouldn't be done because it conflicts with the bot-generated AfD-merge templates). On other points, however, I don't think the changes will help. The 'date shown twice isn't problematic, and also fulfils two different purposes - the 'Month, Year' is used for sorting into the maintainence categories, while the precise date is used for the purposes of copyright recognition. I don't like your suggested 'article is current being merged' wording, because this is often not happening - that is, no-one is merging it; your wording might dissuade editors from helping to carry out the merge. Regarding 'why would any sane person ...', the answer is that there are plenty of 2nd and 3rd nominations for deletions, and this is a valid thing to do; there is a reason that phrase is there. So, on balance, I prefer the current wording. Klbrain (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

step 4 of the merge instructions shouldn't be done because it conflicts with the bot-generated AfD-merge templates
Yup, there's already a section specifically for AfD mergers on that page.

the precise date is used for the purposes of copyright recognition
I don’t understand this. Copyright?

I don't like your suggested 'article is current being merged' wording, because this is often not happening
I meant for it to be similar to {{Being merged}}, which is virtually always used when nobody is actively doing it despite the consensus having been reached.

there are plenty of 2nd and 3rd nominations for deletions, and this is a valid thing to do
I don’t understand this either. People are seeing a big, colorful banner telling them that there was consensus at AfD itself to merge the article thay're on, and they decide to nominate the at AfD article again? People can't possibly read the rest of the notice and stilll nominate it at AfD again. Twice! FaviFake (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I've tried to address as many of the concerns as possible and boldly implemented them, after weeks of no other opposition. FaviFake (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

PLEASE activate the syntax highlighter gadget in your Preferences. It will help you avoid making simple syntax errors such as the ones that were in the sandbox and in the live template. I believe that I have tried to help you with this in the past. Also, please remember to check the template and testcases page for Linter errors.

The template had misnested small and italic tags. I have fixed them for you. Please check the output on the testcases page to ensure that it reads as you want it to. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Arghhh, I had checked them 3 different times in the sandbox but forgot to check them when I made the last edit!!

Thanks for fixing them. I swear I've been checking for linter errors much more often since you started telling me. At least my mistakes don't seem to be that hard to fix. (Or hard to notice in the first place, which is why I'm so angry with myself!)

Any update on the GOCE restructuring? FaviFake (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

If you have the syntax highlighter gadget enabled, there is nothing to "check". You just see on your screen that something is likely to be wrong, and you don't click Publish. You can do it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)