Category talk:Miscellany to be merged

Category definition?[edit]

What's the difference between "items to be merged" and "articles to be merged"? --DocumentN (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is 3.5 years late, but for others wondering, here 'items' refers to non-main namespace pages and main namespace pages are called 'articles' in many places.

Categories and templates should not appear here as they have other processes to handle merging. Mark Hurd (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is correct. But I see no compelling reason to remove categories and templates. Even if they were not properly tagged, that is no reason not to have them here. I sometimes go over them, and tag them properly (or just do the merge). Debresser (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my wording could be taken that way. I meant categories and templates that DO appear here have been incorrectly tagged and should be reworked if you have time... Mark Hurd (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you could remind me next week, I shall do so. Debresser (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... That was a general you, not specific to you, Debresser, but if you're really willing to take on the correction of the Templates (I've done the Categories), I'll try to help too; there's about a score in total, though that is without actually looking at the detail of how/why they're listed. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Debresser (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last revision[edit]

This revision does not seem very helpful, as templates are more often than not dealt with in an informal basis. Was there a more specific reason than "reversion"?... --Izno (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would reword. Template and category merges may be proposed on talk pages, but under no circumstances should they have merge tags, as it causes problems with categorization. It's recommended to take categories and templates to categories for discussion or templates for discussion instead. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say that "templates are more often than not dealt with in an informal basis". But that is not the point. As Dondegroovily correctly pointed out, templates are indeed sometimes dealt with without intervention of official discussion venues such as Tfd, simply by discussing the issue on the talkpage. I had a very nice example of that yesterday. But if they are already tagged for merging, then they should be tagged with the correct merge tag, which is {{Tfm}}. So I see no reason for a rewording of the present text, which says precisely that. In other words: it is correct that discussion on a talkpage is a valid alternative to tagging. But when a template shows up here, that means that that venue has not been chosen. So there is no need to refer the reader back to that alternative, no reason to mention it at this stage any more. Debresser (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm don't agree on "But when a template shows up here, that means that that venue has not been chosen"; I would think it is somewhat obvious that there are people who will tag a template for merge and then have the discussion on the talk page, as was done here (and I'm sure has been done elsewhere, as Donde has I'm sure seen), without expectation that it should be moved to a tfd (as Donde did with Mario franchise, which is what spurred my post here). There should definitely be some rewording on this category if not the TfD template. Thoughts? --Izno (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was asked to, I'd just like to confirm I agree with Debresser's reversion, although I do still stand by my undone edit for people who do arrive here by whatever means can then easily locate the rest of the "Items" to be merged. Mark Hurd (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]