User talk:SD0001/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)

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

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)

@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)

@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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Paul 012 Fwiw, I think the Rcat templates should definitely be placed within the shell by the template. As you said, the text doesn't make sense otherwise. (pinging SD0001 in case they're interested) FaviFake (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

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)

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:

this edit

after

merge

or

this edit

after

this merge

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)

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)

Looks like this page fell off my watchlist a few years ago, apologies for the delayed response :) Fixed now. This was an edge case because "Earth god" happens to be a substring of "Earth goddess". – SD0001 (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

When merging a page, the application will set the class to redirect in Wikiproject banners. Apparently this is detected automatically now, so talk page edits get cleaned up by a bot, such as . Might want to remove this part from the program so this isn't necessary. Thanks so much for creating this, I use it all the time! Reywas92^Talk 00:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Seconding both the suggest and the hearty thanks for the script, which I also use frequently. I have had other editors complain when I use the 'banners' feature, because they note the presence of bots to do this. An alternative to removing the feature might just be to set the default to 'unticked' for banners - that will save me a few hundred milliseconds a pop. Not a big concern, but if you're feeling bored ... Klbrain (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Fixed Class param is now removed instead of being changed to class=redirect. – SD0001 (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello this could be very useful but I just tried it and at the moment it only seems to be redirecting not merging. I had to do https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=1298712467&oldid=1298588862 manually.

Could someone possibly add the expansion of the target article to the script? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

You still have to carry out the process of merging the text, which requires judgement and some finess unsuitable for simple automation. However, the script is helpful for adding the merged from and merged to templates, and other rather mundane parts of a merge. Klbrain (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I noticed this script doesn't remove the {{Being merged}}, so I have to do it manually eavery time (see here: Special:Diff/1313667876). I suspect other templates are also not included in the list, like {{Merging}}. There's a fuller list of these templates at the documentation of {{Being merged}}. Could the developer add these to the script so they can be removed? Thanks! FaviFake (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

It does remove {{being merged}}, but only if it's in the {{being merged|PAGE NAME|...}} form. In this case, there was a dir= parameter before the page name which prevented it from being detected. Is that kind of usage common? – SD0001 (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the clarification. It had to manually remove it about 4 or 5 times, so I thought it wasn't on the list. I think it is common. The dir parameter is the second-most important parameter besides the pagename. The pages that currently use that template are here, if you would like to check: Category:Pages_currently_being_merged. FaviFake (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

This is still happening, see User talk:FaviFake § Merge templates post-merge FaviFake (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I was notified that I accidentially redirected an article to itself using this script. While that's obviously my fault, I was wondering how hard it would be to add an error to the script to avoid this sort of thing from happeing?

I also have another feature request. Since WP:MERGE says: (emphasis supplied)

Do not add a new merge-from template to the talkpages if the merger is the result of an WP:AfD discussion, and {{Afd-merge from}} [or its aliases {{Afdmergefrom}} and {{Afd-mergefrom}}] has already been placed on the destination talk page.

... Could these two checkboxes default to "disabled" instead of "enabled" when the script notices that {{Afd-merge to}} is placed on the article that's going to be redirected?

Add {{merged-from}} to talk page of target page
Add {{merged-to}} to talk page of this page

Thoughts? SD0001 FaviFake (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)