User talk:SD0001/easy-merge

Suggestion for easy-merge

@SD0001: Love the script, which I'm busily using. Some suggestions:

I wonder whether the script might be able to detect a range of synonyms of template:merge from and template:merge to when deleting merge templates on the article pages. The linked synonym include, Merge-from, Mergefrom and MergeFrom are in use (redirects to the template). Its probably worth not including 'Mergefrommulti and its variants on the grounds that these are likely to have be manually dealt with anyway. In a similar way, alternatives to template:Merge to include Merge-to, Merge to MergeTo mergeinto, Merge-into, Merge to article and Merge2.
Automatically detecting the # in the target page and adding a template:R to section would be helpful; I do lots of section merges, so I'm having to go back and add this in
Having the option (check-box) to keep the categories might be helpful, as (particularly with section merges) some of the categories are worth keeping on the redirect.

Just some thoughts; thanks again for the great tool. Klbrain (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your work on merging articles, which happens to be largely neglected on wikipedia. SD0001 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was a very fast implementation; thanks. I confirm that the R to section addition worked for me ... I happened to use the script before reading your comments here; a nice surprise. Yes, merges are rather neglected, but it has become my gnomish distraction over the last 3 or 4 years. The backlog of 15months or so is certainly better than the 4 years or so it was back a few years ago, and the number of articles to merge is steadily coming down to a more reasonable equilibrium. Klbrain (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Error

@SD0001: I get the error Uncaught TypeError: dateobj.getUTCMonthName is not a function because dateobj is a Date object, but since yesterday the getUTCMonthName is now apart of the Morebits.date object.– BrandonXLF (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrandonXLF: Thanks for notifying me, should be fixed now. Not the first time my own script broke due to my own changes in morebits.js :) Great to see this is still being used though. SD0001 (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick fix (I had also noticed that it was down); a handy tool! Klbrain (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

location.reload

@SD0001: Hi. I think you can add the line bellow to L-131 to refresh the page after job is done.

Morebits.wiki.actionCompleted.redirect = mw.config.get('wgPageName');

Jeeputer (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also place the Rcat templates within the shell

Hi. Here's a request to also add the {{Rcat shell}} template around the generated {{R from merge}} and {{R to section}} templates on the resulting redirect, as that's how they should be used. Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, given that that Rcat shell is optional (according to the template description), rather than obligatory, and unduly cumbersome when this script generates a maximum of 2 redirect templates. Klbrain (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original position that the shell was optional never really made sense, given the way the Rcat templates are designed, i.e. the shell provides the main explanation This page is a redirect... which is then elaborated by the tags, ...From a merge. Without the shell, the message begins abruptly as "From a merge", which is confusing. I haven't been following discussions, but it seems that there's a move towards having the shell as standard. For example, redirects automatically created during page moves, which didn't used to use the shell, now do. What is the reason to prefer not having the shell template? How is it "unduly cumbersome"? --Paul_012 (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that for the merge templates, the text is clear as it. You're concerned that the message begins abruptly, yet by convention the template appears immediately after the redirect. So, in context, the meaning of the heading is clear. The following text is a full sentence that doesn't need contextualization. So, my preference is for a simpler structure with fewer words on the page when those aren't needed by the target audience (which is not the average page reader, who will rarely or never see these messages). However, I don't mind the addition if the consensus is for it. Klbrain (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's wait and hear what others think. It's not that big a deal anyway. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this easy-merge script is a disaster, shud be deleted probably

I see that this script has been used a number of times to hurt Wikipedia by merely redirecting articles that needed merging. It literally facilitates redirecting instead of performing an actual merge. The "instructions" given are only about redirecting and removing the instructions about real mergers being needed, per merger decisions taken at wp:AFD.

For example, this diff by editor User:TheBirdsShedTears with edit summary "(Merged content to List of hotels in Nigeria per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jubilee Chalets, redirecting (easy-merge))". And others in that editor's contribution history.

I suppose I should nominated this for deletion, or what?

User:SD0001, comment? Are there any cases when this has facilitated actually proper mergers? Can you provide, or is there some way you know that I could generate, a list of usages of this script? I rather expect every usage should be reversed.

As far as I know, it has only facilitated damage to Wikipedia. Even if it has facilitated some proper mergers, the fact of facilitating damage, ever, outweighs the value of having this, IMHO.

--Doncram (talk,contribs) 16:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I find the tool invaluable for adding the appropriate redirect templates (and other changes) after the merge has been done with a separate edit. The problem is not the tool, but the users. So, educate editors, rather than removing a tool. You've pointed out a problem with a particular editor, but that editor hasn't been active for 6 months, so their behavior doesn't seem to be a current problem. Perhaps a simple guide to using this script responsibly might help?

If you'd like some examples of my use, see:

after

or

after

or any of several hundred similar edits over the last year. My view is that it has been very helpful to the project. Klbrain (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the wrong template

I've just seen what I think is a rare error: on the page List of earth deities which was listed with separate templates for merging from Earth goddess and Earth god, with the former template listed first. Using easy-merge set to remove merge from template as part of merging Earth god led to the wrong template being removed. This is no significant problem (easily spotted and corrected manually), but if someone is feeling bored it might be fixable. The relevant edit was this one. Klbrain (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC) I continue to use this, and think that it is a very helpful tool! Klbrain (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]