Talk:Userscript

JavaScript Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject JavaScript, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to JavaScript, and to the development of user scripts for use on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaScriptWikipedia:WikiProject JavaScriptTemplate:WikiProject JavaScriptJavaScript articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

To be or not to be?[edit]

Doesn't Userscript deserve its own page? Userscript is/can/should be the generic term, instead of "Greasemonkey Script". Such script functionality is now broader than Greasemonkey, http://userscripts.org/ is the largest repository of scripts, and the term is even used on this site on List of augmented browsing software. Gpk-urmc (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Userscripts are in widespread use, and "userscript" is a common term amongst computer users, including Firefox users (via Greasemonkey), WikiMedia users (MediaWiki supports userscripts), etc. Writing userscripts is one of the main uses of JavaScript. Not having an article on this would be an unfortunate oversight. The Transhumanist 02:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's other sites too...[edit]

Are there any policies on this site which prevent listing "Sleazy Fork" as one of the many userscript sites around? Would there be enough to make a page listing them off or should a table be simply added to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turijet (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL is what we would have to follow, and as it's not an official site and it's not an official site and pretty much a fan site. My interpretation may be wrong. Feel free to check it over and see if there's some category you think it fits under. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings about primary sources[edit]

I am not sure about these, they seem necessary, the reason is that it is a simple statement of fact, there is no analysis undertaken, does that make sense? Micsthepick (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just read further about this: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", pretty sure that is the case here, so I will go ahead and remove these warnings Micsthepick (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

to be clear, I was actually only thinking of the warnings in the last two places, I have left the others there Micsthepick (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion[edit]

Request received to merge articles: Userscript manager into Userscript; dated: November 2023. Proposer's Rationale: Article subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, thus not meeting the general notability guidelines. Userscript already has a section on managers, the content would be better suited there. Discuss here. Annoyedhumanoid (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger – There is more coverage in that article than this one, and so it wouldn't be better suited here. If it is merged, the userscript article will be mostly about userscript managers, which topically, would be awkward. Based on the rate at which new material is being added to the userscript manager article, it is likely to keep growing. I'd say it is best to leave it separate. As for notability of the class, Tampermonkey, a userscript manager, has over 10,000,000 users on a weekly basis. So, it's odd that userscript managers would be considered not notable. — The Transhumanist 01:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]