Template talk:Mergedisputed

Redirection to Template:Merge[edit]

I've given the issue a great deal of thought, and have arrived at the conclusion that this is the correct course of action. My reasons are as follows:

1. When this template was created, it served a valid purpose. At the time, the primary {{merge}} tags indicated that the articles "should be merged," without allowing for the possibility that this sentiment was less than unanimous. Subsequently, a clear consensus emerged for the current wording, which merely states that the merger "has been suggested." It can be assumed that a great many of these suggestions are disputed by one or more people; thus, this template has been rendered redundant.

2. Because of the above, relatively few users switch to this template when disputing a merger proposal. This creates the false impression that the articles containing the {{mergedisputed}} tag are the only ones for which a merger has been disputed.

3. A recent addition to this template was the separate categorization of disputed merger proposals (a goal with which the above issue interferes). There's no practical reason for this, as relatively few people will bother to check such a category. (Meanwhile, articles are removed from the category that many people do check.)

If anyone disagrees with my decision, feel free to revert my edit (but please give the above points due consideration). —David Levy 19:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the change. If you feel strongly that a merge is objectionable, then this should be the correct template. 132.205.45.110 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care you address my specific points? —David Levy 03:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-done the redirect. The appropiate place to work out am erge is on the article talk page, and the normal merge tag is not "undistputed merge" after all. - brenneman ^{L} 01:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This tag serves a useful purpose, because currently there isn't a time limit on merges, even if they are clearly disputed. Addhoc 13:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]