Template talk:Old merge

Inconsistency

The template doesn't seem to work the way it is said it does at WP:MERGE and the template documentation, with regard to how the "result=" parameter should be formatted. Was it your edit, QEDK? I don't care which way but the inconsistency needs to be resolved. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: I only changed the bold/caps formatting, it's probably John Cline who made the changes (?) --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking functionality for no consensus

I'd like to add this to a page for a discussion where there was weak consensus against a merge, but it won't let me, since it can only handle "merge" or "not merge". This would be especially bad for a situation in which the result was no consensus. Can we please get this working a little better? The documentation is also lacking. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Just looking at the template, it appears that you can use |result= to display any message after "the result of the discussion was". For example to display no consensus you could use {{Old merge full|result='''no consensus'''}}. It appears that a month ago I altered the functionality slightly and did not correctly update the doc. Terasail ^[✉] 15:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terasail, thanks! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template needs to display a different message on destination pages

Hey there! This template currently displays the same message — "This article was nominated for merging with (destination page) on (date). The result of the discussion was (result)." — even when the template is placed on the destination page's talk page. Perhaps the template could detect when it is placed on the destination page and change accordingly? Maybe the template syntax could be changed to include a case for this? I'm no template editor myself, so it'd be great to hear the opinion of someone more experienced at this. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 11:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just came back to this and realized my mistake lol. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]