Automated "merge from"

Twinkle generates the ((merge to)) and ((merge from)) tags correctly, but the section name in the "discuss=" pointer doesn't match the name generated. It's still better than most manual merges, so I suppose I shouldn't complain, but it could be better. Perhaps an option to name the section, also? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in response Arthur Rubin, but I'm not quite sure what exactly you're asking for. I can tell you're talking about David Hampton and Six Degrees of Separation (play), but what specifically did you want changed? ~ Amory (utc) ~ Amory (utc) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that specific example, Twinkle generated |discuss=Talk:Six Degrees of Separation (play)#Proposed merge with David Hampton in the ((mergefrom)) and ((mergeto)) templates, but generated the section (visibly) as Talk:Six Degrees of Separation (play)#Proposed merge of David Hampton into Six Degrees of Separation (play). The section name in the "discuss" field has to match the generated section title. I patched it by adding an ((anchor)) template to the generated discussion section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add /* PAGE NAME */ to edit summary for RPP

Can we add /* PAGE NAME */ to the edit summary when requesting page protection? This allows user to quickly find the section on WP:RPP from history pages and their own contribution page, so they can check for responses to the request.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeandcrumbs: DannyS712 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712, I was trying to follow the github and I noticed it was merged to azatoth:master. What is the next step? When does it become part of current version? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Whenever @Amorymeltzer: releases the next update DannyS712 (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am just curious how this all works. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Adding entry at WP:RM/TR: failed to find target spot for the entry"

When I try to make a Requested Move and ticks "Uncontroversial technical request", Twinkle presents me with the error mesage "Adding entry at WP:RM/TR: failed to find target spot for the entry". When I untick "Uncontroversial technical request", Twinkle works fine. Veverve (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: I have restored the comment at the top of WP:RM/TR, as I suspect Twinkle is looking for this exact text. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@John of Reading: it now works correctly! Veverve (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex 21: I have undone part of this edit that you made. Your addition looks good to me, but it should wait until the Twinkle developers have adjusted their code to allow for it. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There was a recent, related discussion at WT:RM/TR. I've gone and made this change as well as that one, and will quickly update the on-wiki Twinkle gadget. Please let me know of any additional changes or tweaks so I can update Twinkle. ~ Amory (utc) 11:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John of Reading:The problem is now back again! Veverve (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amorymeltzer: What comment is Twinkle looking for, currently? The comment was expanded on 26 December, but unfortunately with a typo, which was fixed on 28 December. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@John of Reading and Veverve: No, it's been changed since. I changed the comment on 31 December to combine the two conversations, but the this line was removed without comment later on New Year's Eve. I will update the gadget to use the text currently present, but Twinkle currently needs a consistent text to look for. ~ Amory (utc) 10:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amorymeltzer: I wonder if it would be better in the long run to stick something in the comment that looks like magic, perhaps ((TWINKLE-INSERT-MARKER)), and code Twinkle to look for this marker and then the end of the comment. Then the rest of the comment could be revised without breaking Twinkle. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a text like "Twinkle marker" would be fine, although I'm generally hesitant to impose Twinkle unless absolutely necessary. In the end, all the various XfD locales have a better solution: the message doesn't change. I can make the regex search more generic to avoid this ongoing, should take care of most things. ~ Amory (utc) 11:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PROD error


A special case is BLPPROD: an article which has had the BLPPROD-tag removed still can be PRODed via the process described here.

I tried to propose deletion of the article Neve Te Aroha Ardern Gayford; TWINKLE reported that I may not do so because there was a previous PROD removed, but history shows it was a WP:BLPPROD. I sent it to WP:AFD, but if anyone thinks it meets WP:CSD#A7, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UWs removed from the menu?

Why have some of the entries in Twinkle's WP:UW pop-up menu been removed? For example, the ((Uw-mos1)) series has been removed, but I don't think it was the only one... Why was this done? --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: It is still there - but I have to scroll down to the bottom of two scrollbars to see it. The list of warnings has a scrollbar, as you'd expect, and the whole dialog has a scrollbar as well, which looks like a mistake. I'm using Firefox 72.0.1 and Windows 10. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right – that was the issue: I was only scrolling to the bottom of the "inside" scrollbar, not both scrollbars... What is weird, I guess, is that I don't remember this being an issue before, so something's changed – either within Twinkle, or with the newest version of Firefox. As you're using Firefox too, I've got to think the issue is Firefox. --IJBall (contribstalk) 07:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a known problem with a patch being developed at github, but it kind of stalled. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

partial blocks functionality?

Well, partial blocks are a thing now, so I'm curious as to whether there is any possibility the feature will be integrated into Twinkle's block function? It seems like a pretty useful little tool, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who prefers the ease of Twinkle blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's come up, yes. The short answer is I'm hoping to work on something basic this week and next, life depending. It's not entirely clear yet, though, what the framework should be for things like templates, although QEDK's work on ((uw-pblock)) is helpful. ~ Amory (utc) 01:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I didn't expect it would be there from day one, but was kind of surprised not to see any mention of it here. I should've known you were all over it already. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does ARV stand for?

--MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonythedwarf: Advance Reporting and Vetting. --qedk (t c) 18:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsing PRODs doesn't work in talk page has old prod template

It looks like Twinkle now places ((old prod)) at the talk page at the time of nomination. However, it seems that this stops the script for endorsing an existing PROD via ((Proposed deletion endorsed)), since it finds the ((old prod)) and aborts. May be I missed something, but previously it always asked if one wanted to endorse instead if an existing PROD was in place. I don't recall if talk prod notice was ever present in those cases. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Twinkle and speedies

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Twinkle and speedies. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Changes to Template:Expand language

These aren't breaking changes, but this template was recently updated to allow up to three languages to be specified using the parameters langcode2, otherarticle2, langcode3, and otherarticle3, so it would be nice if these could be supported by Twinkle. Ionmars10 (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020 Twinkle updates, features, and behaviors (2020-01-24)

This latest update is a big one: partial blocking support is here! The warn menu also has two brand new menus: one that puts the single notices and warnings together, and one that shows every single message available. The menus for picking warnings and deletion sorting categories for AfD noms has been improved, and there are a number of bug fixes as well as improved handling and functionality. Changes not otherwise attributed were made by User:Amorymeltzer.

This section should serve as a catching ground should anything not work properly or if any new bugs crop up, as well as for any feedback or suggestions. There were a lot of changes behind the scenes, so feel free to ping me. As always, input is welcome at the GitHub repo as well. Finally, if you're interested in helping out with Twinkle development, we've started guideline to help new contributors get set up — check it out! ~ Amory (utc) 18:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technical changes

Also, for the more technical folks, there are a number of behind the scenes changes, briefly noted below:

Additionally, the select2 library added above as an alternative to chosen is available as a Gadget in MediaWiki:Gadget-definition, so it can easily be accessed by other user scripts and tools. Additionally, 692 added a few functions to the Morebits library in Morebits.select2 that improve the handling of select2 menus. ~ Amory (utc) 18:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]