MediaWiki talk:Gadgets-definition

• MediaWiki
• Meta
• Commons
• Wikibooks
• Wikiquote
• Wikisource
• Wiktionary
• de
• fr
• pl
• ja
• it
• nl
• es

For information about gadgets, see Wikipedia:Gadget; for the addition of user scripts as gadgets, see Wikipedia:Gadget proposals.

Customization

I noticed popups were added as a test. If scripts like this are added, how does somebody customize the script's configuration? For example, I've configured popups in my monobook to add the disambiguation and admin features. Would the scripts added here be customizable somehow or are you stuck with the basic configuration if you enable it through preferences? - auburnpilot talk 02:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to write the script in such a way that it's customisable via monobook.js. I'm not sure if the version of popups added to the gadgets list is customisable like this or not. You might want to keep your popups configuration in your monobook.js, but comment out the inclusion of popups itself, installing through preferences instead, and seeing if it worked; it would be useful to know if popups-via-preferences is customisable in its current form or whether it needs changing. --ais523 08:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed popups from my monobook.js, leaving the customizations, and enabled them via preferences. I was still able to use the disambiguation and admin settings, so I assume you can in fact customize these gadgets through the monobook.js. Thanks for the idea, Ais523; worked well. - auburnpilot talk 13:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that should work. But it makes it more difficult to change the settings. Prodego ^talk 20:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The documentation for this doesn't seem to match our implementation, questions:

1. Should there be a matching MediaWiki:Navigation_popups page for this?
2. Where is the control that is making it link to Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups

— xaosflux ^Talk 04:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi answered myself, see MediaWiki:Gadget-Navigation popups. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Got the rest, just really not used to the prefix naming scheme. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(restore question self removed as the answer edit conflicted my removal)Standards questions, should we pipe Gadgets in to user: space, or bring them in to MediaWiki somewhere? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My advice would be to establish a "stable" version in MediaWikispace and use that one as the gadget. The one in userspace should be for development purposes only, and the MediaWiki version should only be updated once changes to the userspace version have been tested and validated. As far as security goes, however, there's likely not much harm in leaving them in (an administrator's) userspace; it's more an issue of semantics. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have the expertise to move the css portion of popups over? Prodego ^talk 12:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking on Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups#Changing_the_appearance_of_your_popups .css is not required, but is used to set per-user options to change the appearance, am I missing something else? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at the very top of popups.js. It calls a css page there, if I remember correctly. Prodego ^talk 13:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does call a CSS page there, User:Lupin/navpop.css. I will go make a request for MediaWiki:Gadget-navpop.css to be created (and then the needed changes for the other relevant pages). FunPika 02:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To Do's

1. Get some better definition and description pages for the headers (could very well be sections using Page#Section markup.
2. Create Help:Gadgets or Wikipedia Gadgets for general information and documentation
3. Have a centralized location for requesting additions (here?) — xaosflux ^Talk 13:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be Wikipedia:Gadgets since it's project-specific, and I also suggest that we organize gadjets descriptions, for example as Wikipedia:Gadgets subpages. At least this should be better than current e.g. Wikipedia:Tools/Disable access keys. As for #3, maybe «Wikipedia:Gadgets proposals», or another subpage «Wikipedia:Gadgets/Proposals» ? I could suggest some gadgets but I'm still waiting for a stable "Proposals" page ∴ AlexSm 18:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if nobody minds I think I'll create WP:Gadgets Proposals ∴ AlexSm

I have just created Wikipedia:Gadgets and Wikipedia:Gadget proposals. Сасусlе 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ∴ AlexSm 22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin Gadgets

• Thread moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_User_scripts/Gadgets#Admin_Gadgets to centralize the discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Normal Gadgets to consider

These should all be multibrowser compatible (Opera, FF, Safari and IE). I have used all of them at times, and none of them are admin scripts.

• a ported HotCat.js from Commons
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Formatter the format tab
• User:Rparle/monobook.js/purgebutton a purge tab
• User:Alex_Smotrov/qpreview.js Quick preview
• User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff.js wikiEdDiff (an additional diff mode that sometimes makes it easier to spot small diffs in my experience

Also, I was wondering. is it possible to set the default value of these gadgets ? I imagine some people might like to deactivate wikiminiatlas for instance ? just an idea. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with HotCat, someone needs to port it to en.wp first. I'm against other scripts for various reasons, and I suggest we develop some kind of procedure and then discuss the scripts one by one, not a bunch at the same time. Note that similar discussions also takes place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_User_scripts/Gadgets ∴ AlexSm 20:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

HotCat was ported to fr: so should be able to work here after translation. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested addition: external links

Opening external links in a new tab/window:

addOnloadHook(function() {
    var alinks = document.getElementById('content').getElementsByTagName("a");
    var tablink, sitename;
    for (var i = 0, leng = alinks.length; i < leng; i++) {
        tablink = alinks[i];
        if (tablink.className.indexOf("external") != -1 && tablink.href.indexOf(wgServer) != 0)
            tablink.target = "_blank";
    }
});

This has been proposed twice: 1, 2. If anyone wants to improve the script for performance/style/general usefulness, please do so. Gracenotes^T § 21:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Added {{editprotected}} – any objections to including this? Gracenotes^T § 21:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it firefox only, and, if not, what happens in a browser that does not support tabbed browsing? Prodego ^talk 21:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It works in Firefox, IE, and Opera (I don't have Safari). If a browser does not support tabbed browsing, the link will open in a new window. If the browser does support tabs, the link will open either in a new window or a new tab, depending on the user's browser preferences. Gracenotes^T § 22:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel like only very few people would use this script. You could count my opinion as weak oppose, because at some point the list of gadgets is going to be way too long. As for suggestions, you could use document.getElementById('content').getElementsByTagName('a') to exclude all the portlet links and speed the script up a little ∴ AlexSm 00:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll let you decide that, we can always remove it. Done. Prodego ^talk 00:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is almost a perennial proposal, so having it as a preference makes sense. A long 'Gadgets' list is not a bad thing, in my opinion. --ais523 09:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about having a long list of Gadgets; while I don't want to have five hundred or so to sort through, having a wide variety wouldn't be bad at all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 09:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do need to get to that point, no? I thought that the option being proposed on two different instances and supported by several people would be merit enough to include it. I only proposed it here because someone prompted me to. Gracenotes^T § 00:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Under Safari (my browser, which supports tabbed browsing, and on Mac OS X), enabling this gadget opens external links in a new window. I figure that that is useful information, as it was the only one to be tested. Nihiltres^{t.l} 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It opens in a new window under Firefox 2 (running on Ubuntu Linux). Firefox's settings can be changed so that it opens in a new tab, though, because there is a preference on Firefox to override 'new window' with 'new tab' everywhere. --ais523 12:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Change to popups line

{{editprotected}}

Please change * Navigation_popups|popups.js to * Navigation_popups|popups.js|navpop.css. FunPika 03:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - Nihiltres^{t.l} 03:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Browser specific?

How do we handle browser specific tools? My tools would be very useful here, but I have no desire to waste time on making them IE compatible, especially since we don't use any real cross-browser libraries. Zocky | picture popups 13:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Which scripts do you think would be useful? I wouldn't mind making them IE compatable, if such is possible. Gracenotes^T § 16:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The 4 that are listed at the top of my userpage. Zocky | picture popups 17:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

cookie-based Preferences?

Per discussion on #mediawiki-scripts@freenode, I've been pondering a cookie-based preference system that could work with gadgets, and in fact all user scripts. Of course, some people have cookies disabled or use multiple browsers or machines, so a good fallback would be some sort of global variables in their user/skin.js.

So, I've written up a mostly-working proof of concept of both of these combined, which may prove to be useful after some heavy testing/cleanup. See Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/preferences and the associated talk page for details. --Splarka (rant) 04:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

UTCLiveClock

Can we please have gadgets that work for everyone, and not just for users who happen to have QueryString already installed in their monobook.js? ∴ AlexSm 00:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, missed that, forgot I had that changed a while back. _→AzaToth 00:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

_→AzaToth 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Special:Log/rights

The rights log is pretty spammy now due to rollback. Per request, I've created a pretty useable interactive filter script for the user rights log at User:Splarka/lifilter.js (Note: Now expanded to work in all logs li-lists). The features include:

• Creates the button to generate the form on Special:Log/rights or type=rights (the form can also be auto-generated on page load via var AutoLoadLogsFilter=true; in your user scripts).
• Choose to match only (for log=rights only):
  • Log entries that added this right, eg "sysop" in "(none) to sysop"
  • Log entries that removed this right, eg "rollbacker" in "rollbacker to (none)"
  • Log entries that added or removed this right
  • Log entries that mention this right, eg "sysop" in "sysop, rollbacker to sysop"
• Regex string search for the match chosen above, eg "sysop" or "(sysop|checkuser)". In the rights log, the string regexly searched is a space-delimited list of the rights (not comma separated). In all other logs, it will search the entire string's plain text representation (minus XML markup, but leaving in invisible unicode).
• [hilight] will hilight the log entries that match the above critera.
• [filter] will hide the log entries that do not match the above critera.
• Invert will reverse the match behavior of [filter] and [hilight]

So for example, if you do not care about "rollbacker" changes, you can choose "Added or Removed", put in "rollbacker", select "[x] invert", and click "[filter]". It will then hide any entries where the "rollbacker" right was added or removed (but will show lines where it was not changed, eg "rollbacker to rollbacker, sysop"). Can I get some tests in IE6/7 and Opera, and if it behaves, can it be added to the available gadgets? Streamlining/fixes/comments cheerfully tolerated (heh heh). --Splarka (rant) 01:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Opera 9.2 is fine, I'll be able to check it in IE6 when you remove semicolon from style.display = 'none;'. Also I think the script could apply regex filter to other types of log as well ∴ AlexSm 02:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn IE. Done. And yes, it probably could be adapted to a general log filter, but right now it is somewhat custom-made for user rights (in english) due to the sloppy way in which the log displays them (that is, it specifically only searches for the rights). Also: The API could possibly be utilized to display them much cleaner. --Splarka (rant) 02:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, expanded it for all logs, please test the new version. Note that if you are not on Log/rights, you'll be searching the entire line as if it were a plaintext string (no XML markup) and there is no "added/removed" as that only pertains to rights. --Splarka (rant) 04:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

New gadget pages

As suggested above, I have created Wikipedia:Gadget for general informations about gadgets and Wikipedia:Gadget proposals for discussing the addition of user scripts as gadgets. Сасусlе 04:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Reworking

Would there by any opposition to my reorganizing this page and adding a few more section headers? It's getting harder and harder to find individual gadgets because of how many there are. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as the new organization makes sense, go ahead; it needs it. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you experiment on a subpage or in your user space, that way the interface would not change too much and irritate users until we have an good final solution. I have noticed this too and had thought of adding the bold gadget name (link) after the checkbox and before the explanation. For the cosmetic gadgets we could come up with a concise explanatory name - just an idea... Cacycle (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure; I'll work something up in a sandbox soon and let you know when I think it's ready. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Gadgets dont work on new MediaWiki software

Since the new Wikimedia Software came online on Tuesday, my GoogleTrans gadget does not load anymore

The NavPopups gadget does not load either.

There is a help file on how to load 'Extensions'. Should we follow this? It requires that a PHP file be made.

Would this PHP file be gadgetname.php?

Would'nt administrators need to make this file since it would have the same name as the gadget?

Has anybody else noticed what I have this morning?

In the description file for the gadgets all the gadgets now link to Gadget-Gadget file, which doesn't exist

Endo999 14:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Back to normal for me now. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

For 10 Min for me. JackPotte (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Because of a bug during the first attempt to deployement interface messages were failing a bit (gadgets are technically also interface messages), during the later deployement this was fixed Krinkle (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

ResourceLoader

Gadgets are not loaded through ResourceLoader by default, instead we can opt-in on a per-gadget base.

Although in most cases opting in it should only do good things (saving requests by combining them in 1 request, making it load less and faster (minified() and cache more (served from bits.wikimedia.irg), some edgecases can break. For that reason I've added a duplicate entry for Navigation-popups (one of the most popular gadgets) and opted it in for ResourceLoader to see how it goes.

If no bugs are found we could opt the normal entry and remove this one. I suggest we follow this procedure without rush and only one or few gadgets at a time (there's no deadline set). Krinkle (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you planning to combine the preference settings of all users once we're satisfied, or will all users of the RL version have to switch back manually?.
Cheers, Amalthea 11:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That will have to happen manually. So I'd say switch to the new one now, and either wait untill you see no popups and switch your preference back then. Or test it for a few hours and switch back so you won't forget. Either way, they won't be merged. Krinkle (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm completely confused. How does one make a gadget to be loaded through ResourceLoader? (so I can start making those improvements on other wiki). I only see you duplicated a line on the deifnitions page, but the exact same sourcefiles (popups.js and navpop.css) are being loaded. Magister Mathematicae (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what I was thinking too when I saw it. I just assumed that there was something going on that simply was not meant for mere mortals like me to understand. Gary King (talk · scripts) 07:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming the maginc is in the [ResourceLoader] tag in the message. Amalthea 08:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Just adding [ResourceLoader] does not change the "name" of the gadget in user preferences in the database so the gadget stays checked if it was checked. I mean that's the only logical way to implement such a switch anyway. — AlexSm 14:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

mw:ResourceLoader/Migration_guide_(users)#Keep_gadgets_central and surrounding pages billinghurst sDrewth 23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

With regard to Popups, I have implemented at Commons and Wikisource. To note that I couldn't get the navpop.css file to import by various means, so in the end, I just put in local copies. The popups component worked fine once Krinkle helped me with the syntax. billinghurst sDrewth 23:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

@Magister Mathematicae: ResourceLoader is a way to load modules. The modules themselfs aren't any different. So it uses the same sources files (no need to duplicate that), but loaded in a different way. The difference between the two lines is two fold.

• A) It has a slightly different name ("NavigationpopupsRL" instead of "Navigation_popups"), this is to prevent collisions with existing preferences, it has to be a different name
• B) It has the [ResourceLoader] which isn't part of the name but a magic word to trigger the resource loader (which will minify, optimize and combine all resources into 1 single request)

@AlexSm: Indeed, the magic word is not part of the name. So once a gadget is known to not break when loading through ResourceLoader (via a temporary copy), the magic word can be added to existing ones and everybody using that gadget will be switched because it didn't change the name thus uses the same preference. That's the whole idea :)

Krinkle (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So, what am I doing wrong? I uncheck the regular Popups and check the RL version, only to find out Popups is defunct. Do I need to check both checkmarks in my gadgets? — Edokter (talk) — 11:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact, in Chrome, all javascript is dead when the RL version of Popups is enabled. — Edokter (talk) — 15:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Gadget tab structure

I'm looking at Special:Preferences#preftab-9 through the eyes of a newcomer, and it seems awfully confusing. Why is there both "editing gadgets" and "user interface - editing gadgets"? And gadgets that are simple enhancements (easy to understand and use, maybe zero-configuration) like the UTC clock are mixed in with advanced stuff (CIDR? Even I don't know what that means) and useful-but-some-learning curve (like Twinkle). I get the impression changing the structure isn't straightforward, but I'm rather tempted to suggest starting again and designing a new structure from scratch. Rd232 ^talk 18:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the whole thing needs a makeover. The problem is that some admins just add their favorite scripts to the list and it eventually gets bloated, especially with scripts that are used by less than a few dozen people. Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I guessed that. The black/green screen thing seems a bit out there... How hard is it to change the structure? Rd232 ^talk 19:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Not hard at all. It's all on this page. Of course, we'd need a discussion on the structure before proceeding, but I am definitely in favor of one. On a related note, I've written a few dozen scripts but even I know that only a handful are useful to a large audience. Many of the scripts on this page are so specialized that they inherently only interest a small number of people. Script packages like Twinkle, however, are useful to such a broad audience that they belong on this page. Also, here's a list of users for each gadget, it's about a year old. Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. What about having a separate "Advanced Gadgets" tab? That would make it easier to really clear some of the more obscure/confusing stuff out of the way. Rd232 ^talk 19:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a good start. I'd say more than half would belong there; essentially, anything that mentions technical terms such as "regex" (regular expressions), "CIDR" (Classless Inter-Domain Routing), etc. would belong. Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, as I mentioned on WP:VPP, a few scripts could be merged into one. The only problem is that each script has a different author; but if we were to create something like MediaWiki:Gadget-contributions.js which all admins are allowed to edit, then we could import related scripts together and they would then come in a package, therefore no longer requiring that the user install each script separately and instead allowing them to install several related scripts at once. Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'd be loathe to remove gadgets as it is easier to access them here than the other way. (There are many interesting scripts that users don't find out about as they are hard to find.) However, I do appreciate the concerns raised over the issue of simplicity, and would support a reorganization of the page to that effect. I'm not sure how easy it is to add a tab for "advanced gadgets" (would that require coding from the devs?) but at the very least we could move "advanced" gadgets to the bottom under their own heading. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking if we had an Advanced Gadgets tab we could add quite a few useful (perhaps underused) scripts, since that tab could be quite a bit more complex. Rd232 ^talk 20:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, on the subject of adding tabs - I wonder if the Twinkle Preferences panel could be an additional tab for those users who have Twinkle installed? Rd232 ^talk 20:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You want to add another tab to Preferences? I don't think we can do that. But, it's easy to add new sections to the Gadgets tab; you just edit this page. Yes, there are a lot of scripts that people will never discover because they aren't listed. The more scripts you have listed, though, the fewer get installed because people don't want to sift through so many scripts, especially when many of the descriptions are hard to decipher. That's why a year ago, I started working on Wikipedia:Script Installer, which lets you go to a script and click "Install this script" without requiring that the user edit anything (check the gallery). The Script Installer was supposed to also create a Script Gallery where scripts could be listed, broken down by category, and show many users installed each one to indicate the more popular ones (screenshot). I stopped working on it a few months ago because I've been busy, etc. but perhaps there's still a need for something like this. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle adds extra tabs at the top of the page. Is it really not possible to do something similar for Preferences tabs? Anyway, anything's possible if the software is changed. But if your Script Installer were finished, that could actually serve a similar purpose. It would become a gadget, with an explanation that lots more scripts, some advanced, are available through it. It would remove the "easy installation" motivation for cramming the Gadgets tab. If you can make it happen, more power to you! Rd232 ^talk 19:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well Script Installer is already done and about a dozen people have it installed already. It's definitely still in beta mode, though, since some features are still missing, such as the ability to uninstall scripts. I've got the most crucial part of being able to install scripts completed a while ago, though. Also, I thought you meant adding tabs to Preferences for everyone, which can't be done. The user would have to install a script to see new tabs in Preferences; I think that's the only way. Or, through a MediaWiki extension, I guess. Gary King (talk · scripts) 06:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

" The user would have to install a script to see new tabs in Preferences" - well that would actually make sense, if a Gadget on the Gadgets tab, when activated, gave access to an additional Advanced Gadgets tab. Rd232 ^talk 06:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The simplest course of action would still seem to be to move the "advanced" gadgets to the bottom of the page. I'm not sure if another tab is the best approach overall, since it is better to keep gadgets to one tab (as with other option tabs). However, what if there was a gadget that - when selected - enabled the display of the more advanced gadgets? --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This page needs a makeover indeed. One big improvement is reorganizing according to functionality. Basically, this means renaming the sections, adding some explanatory text and shuffling some gadgets. My initial suggustion would be:

Appearance

Provides more options to change the appearence of Wikipedia

Editing

Options to change common editing functions

Miscellaneous

Options that do not fall under any other category

Advanced functionality

These gadgets provide advanced functions during reading and editing pages

Thoughts? — Edokter (talk) — 13:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think putting "advanced" gadgets at the bottom of the page (or in it's own section) is a great idea, also I would like to encourage the further development of Script Installer, is there any documentation links to explore ? Mlpearc powwow 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's all in the link I provided, Wikipedia:Script Installer. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry, I missed the previous link. Mlpearc powwow 19:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Any ETA? The currently layout sucks. I'd do it myself, but that requires running for RfA. — Dispenser 14:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't - for this situation you can always do a userspace draft and then propose it and if necessary use {{editprotected}}. Rd232 ^talk 15:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made a start. — Edokter (talk) — 15:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

HideFundraisingNotice gone

If MediaWiki:gadget-HideFundraisingNotice is unlisted then anyone updating their preferences will have it removed. We had some annoyance at the village pump this year since it was originally stated that users wouldn't have to re-enable the gadget every year. This becomes more important if the fundraiser is held more often (the fundraising team is looking into it). — Dispenser 21:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Already done Edokter (talk · contribs) appears to have taken care of this on January 19.[1] Anomie⚔ 14:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Typo

I can't find the MediaWiki page that contains the actual gadget descriptions, so could an admin who knows where it is make the following correction: "Adds two new dropdown boxes below the edit summary box, with some useful default summaries" should be changed to "Add two new dropdown boxes below the edit summary box, with some useful default summaries" (basically change "Adds" to "Add"). Sorry if I'm reporting this in the wrong place... --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Both versions seem correct (as in "[this gadget] adds..."), but I've changed it anyway. — Edokter (talk) — 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

True, it works either way, but the modification makes it consistent with the other options which start with Add, Make, Focus, Disable, etc. Thanks! --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)