MediaWiki talk:Recentchangestext

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This message on other sites, and in other languages on this site[edit]

Note that interlanguage links show up differently on a talk page like this.

Meta | Commons | Wikibooks | Wikiquote | Wikisource | Wiktionary | Deutsch | Français | Nederlands

This message on this site, depending on the user-specified interface language:

  • en (English):
  • af (Afrikaans / Afrikaans): -
  • ar (Arabic / العربية): -
  • bg (Bulgarian / Български): -
  • bn (Bengali / বাংলা): -
  • da (Danish / Dansk): -
  • de (German / Deutsch): -
  • eo (Esperanto / Esperanto): -
  • es (Spanish / Español): -
  • eu (Basque / Euskara): -
  • fr (French / Français): -
  • fy (West Frisian / Frysk): -
  • it (Italian / Italiano): -
  • la (Latin / Latina): -
  • li (Limburgian / Limburgs): -
  • nl (Dutch / Nederlands): -
  • no (Norwegian / ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬): -
  • pl (Polish / Polski): -
  • pt (Portuguese / Português): -
  • ru (Russian / Русский): -
  • sv (Swedish / Svenska): -

Pages in the MediaWiki namespace regarding this message

Recent changes[edit]

In an encyclopedia having nearly 3 million articles[citation needed] of which over 200 are edited a minute, it is worthless for the minimum recent changes that can be viewed to be 50 or the maximum to be 500. The minimum might be left as it is, but the maximum must be expanded to at least 1000 recent edits. Pmlinediter  Talk 09:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It could help to use categories.Daanschr (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Please feel free to use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&limit=1000 (currently showing about seven minutes of changes).   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe now the number should be almost 4 million articles. --CrossTempleJay (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

RSS Feed[edit]

I have recently found that the RSS feed has a minor technical violation of the RSS 2.0 specification. None of the entries are given a <guid> tag - which means that RSS feed readers have no way to uniquely identify each entry. This can lead to those readers displaying every change multiple times. It might not matter on Wikipedia - because if the high rate of edits - but on sites using the MediaWiki codebase that have a lower number of edits it does. A quick fix is to just use the URL from the <link> tag a second time to provide a unique identifier for each entry. -- 216.193.185.50 (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a MediaWiki issue, I am afraid. Look for it here and add it unless it has been noted already. Plrk (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
There was a report - developer closed it as "invalid" because they read the spec to say that the <guid> tag is not required. However, without that tag, no feed-reader that I have used can tell when an item is actually new. The fix I proposed above has not worked completely, as my primary feed reader reports a mass of new edits after being restarted even though those edits have been reported before. (see Bug #7346 for details - I will file a new one, regardless) -- 216.193.185.50 (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Too bad, that sucks. I hope they'll fix it with your new report. However, I must note that Google Reader handles the MediaWiki Recent Changes feeds just fine for me... Plrk (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


Location

i would like to congratulate this company for an excellent service —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.6.194 (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Confusing to newbies[edit]

I think we could do with a one or two line summary of what recent changes actually is, ok there is a link ( what is this page about), but on first click - and it is only one-click from main page - this page could be confusing ... L∴V 22:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you please clarify what page you're talking about before I answer? Thanks! --> A F K When Needed 22:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi AFK! I'm not sure as the special interface pages can be a mystery, but on wikipedia, click recent changes, and your there!, there is a list of links to about this page and utils, followed by the actual changes, but no simple text giving an overview ... L∴V 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thank you!
I wasn't sure if you meant Special:RecentChanges (you do), MediaWiki:Recentchanges, or whatever.
Right, now that we have that sorted out, I'll be honest, personally I don't see the need for it. As far as I'm concerned, contributors new to Wikipedia will have a lot to take in, and as long as they understand the page name -- contributor bit, which is pretty self-explanatory, I think that's more than enough.
I will however say that a small one - two sentence long note explaining the very basic idea of Recent Changes (page name + contributor) would be a good, helpful addition, but imo anything else is overkill. Remember that's just my opinion, of course.
I'd also like to thank you for trying to make us more newb-friendly. :) A F K When Needed 22:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, I think as soon as the font size / colours etc change, continuity gets lost so a very simple one liner is all that's needed to provide an anchor. I am on one of my biannual missions to make access easier, all too often I see surprised looks when I tell people they can edit Wikipedia .. but then when I look at the learning curve of entry into the realms of wiki - well we still have a way to go! All this is good though , there's plenty of untapped potential - it's our job to tap it :) L∴V 22:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dashes[edit]

{{editprotected}}

I suggest replacing all spaced hyphens ( - ) with spaced en-dashes ( – ), for the sake of general consistency and conformance with the Manual of Style. Waltham, The Duke of 21:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneTheDJ (talkcontribs) 01:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Challenges[edit]

I propose we remove 'challenges', recent changes should be as usable as possible, esp. for new/inexperienced users, this is one of the most visible pages we have and we should make sure it's attractive to all. New users are probably confused by this and the header is quite long, so we could make the header shorter and more 'to the point' by removing it. Moreover this project is barely active. Cenarium (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No opposition, I have removed them (WP:SILENCE/WP:BOLD). Cenarium (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes[edit]

Displayed here: propose to remove the (edit) link next to Requests:, as it may be confusing to new and inexperienced users (I've created an editnotice to compensate, it's also in hidden text) and move the living people RC link next to the FA/GA RC links for coherence. Cenarium (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes implemented. Cenarium (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes by Category[edit]

As Wikipedia expands, it is increasingly harder to actually track the recent changes done and correct all vandalism and mistakes. With so many changes in less than a minute, it is almost impossible even for many to track down everything. That is why I want to propose a new system, by which the recent changes are divided into categories. All new articles are assigned a corresponding category as quickly as possible, and then once on the Recent Changes page, a user could choose which category to monitor. This way, it would be much easier to identify mistakes, since changes in one category are less common than in the whole of Wikipedia.

I posted this here because I don't know of any other location to post it, but it would be interesting to know what others think of this. OUTSLIDE 18:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you know that you can already monitor recent changes to articles of any given category? Just go to a category and click on the "related changes" link in the menu on the left. Random example: Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Ancient_Egyptian_priestsXavier, 16:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


Sorry I do't know where else to put this. My complaint is that the cuneiform name for Inanna has been butchered as has another name (whose I can't remember. In previous versions , the cuneiform symbols are correct but in the most recent one - the 8 pointed star (which stands for her divinity) has been turned into two boxes.

I don't know how to go about making these changes so I am hopping someone more capable an do it. Thanks

Montyra (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Melody Chen

MK RC[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Can you add Macedonian interwiki? Thanks in advance--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In other words, can you add [[mk:Special:RecentChanges]] in the IW list? — Xavier, 17:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
YesY Done - Thanks Xavier for clarifying the request. --David Göthberg (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiki[edit]

PHP Wiki  projects  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.64.236 (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 

Remove obsolete link[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Remove the wikilink to Wikipedia:Utilities, as that page is deprecated. Keep the word bold, though. —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes question[edit]

Do edits on pending changes-protected pages show up on the recent changes list? If so, are they specially marked? Ocaasi (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they show up. They are marked with a yellow "pending revisions" notice surrounded by square brackets. If you want to see just the pages with pending changes, see Special:OldReviewedPages. Guoguo12--Talk--  13:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

mtwiki[edit]

Can anyone add mt:Speċjali:TibdilRiċenti interwiki, thanks! --Gian (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Collapsibility[edit]

{{editprotected}} Hi. Please change the class from "plainlinks" to "collapsible collapsed wikitable" and make the other changes I made here to make the recentchangestext collapsible, as it is currently taking too much vertical space on low-resolution screens. Thanks!   — Jeff G.  ツ 07:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Such a change would require a consensus. Has this been discussed anywhere? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The interface page directly states "Discuss this page" with a piped link to this MediaWiki talk:Recentchangestext page, so this appears to be the place to discuss it. Alternative to my original request, how about a way to collapse or vanish it on a per user basis, with a default to expand it?   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
MSGJ asked the above question because you posted an {{editprotected}} request. That tag is to "be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus," with other changes discussed "on the protected page's talk page before using this template." —David Levy 08:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, the editprotected request is no longer in effect. In addition to the above, please discuss below.   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


Support collapsing for all[edit]

  1. I support as requestor (see above) - my first choice.   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Support collapsing on a per user basis, collapsed by default[edit]

  1. I support as requestor (see above) - my second choice.   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Support collapsing on a per user basis, but expanded by default[edit]

  1. I support as requestor (see above) - my third choice.   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. I used to use a 13" display, and on that small a screen this would be useful, but really everyone ought to look at it at least a few times, so obviously expanded by default. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  3. I like the idea of it being collapsible as it is indeed rather bulky on small screens - but I fully agree with NativeForeigner that it should be visible by default until people make a conscious decision that they're aware of it and don't want to see it. Otherwise, it's too easy to miss the fact that it's there at all. ~ mazca talk 13:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support. However, I would like it to be implemented such that once one collapses it, it stays collapsed until one expands it again at some future date. — SpikeToronto 00:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Putting "#recentchangestext { display: none !important; }" in Common.css, conditioned on a "Hide the top of Recent changes" setting in Misc. or Gadgets in the user's Preferences and defaulting to "No" would be a possible implementation of this option. Comments?   — Jeff G.  ツ 14:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Can that avoid needing Javascript? Rd232 talk 14:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Frankly, this is unnecessary. The recent changes text takes up little space to begin with and the addition of unnecessary javascript to the page would only increase its loading time. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. Doesn't really matter, per Fastily. This is a minor detail and the text really should be read by everyone. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  3. I do not agree with this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.171.82 (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Abstain[edit]

Further discussion[edit]

I posted an invitation to this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Collapsibility_of_the_top_of_Recent_changes.   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive218#Collapsibility_of_the_top_of_Recent_changes.   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: It is not necessary to add any Javascript to allow individual users to hide the text. They just need to add

#recentchangestext { display: none !important; }

into their CSS page, which can be accessed via Special:mypage/skin.css. Rd232 talk 00:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!   — Jeff G.  ツ 01:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


Nota bene* UPDATE: I added a note at Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages#MediaWiki talk:Recentchangestext to hopefully drive some traffic here so that this matter, which has been pending for some months, can be resolved. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 00:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove 'Dead-end'[edit]

The link to Dead-end under 'Utilities' takes one to a page that is no longer updated. The pages that are listed there seem to have been either fixed or deleted. I would therefore recommend that this link be removed from Recentchangestext to avoid others wasting their time. Derek Andrews (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Announcements[edit]

Please replace the link to Wikipedia:Announcements (third line down) with a link to Wikipedia:Milestones to reflect the recent page move of WP:Announcements to WP:Milestones. The page is no longer used for announcements. Guoguo12 (Talk)  23:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you. Guoguo12 (Talk)  13:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)- this is very interesting

Is there any way...[edit]

that the articles in recent changes can have the (top)s on them? It would make it a lot easier if you're doing it through tags or something. Glacialfox (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Related changes for good articles[edit]

The related changes link for "good articles" isn't working as intended. It should be replaced with Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:Good articles/all. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, while you're at it, please take heed of the request a few sections up, and remove the "Dead-end" link - the data there hasn't been updated since July 2010. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 18:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Fix "newbies" link for MW1.19[edit]

Please fix the "New editors' contribs" link per mediazilla:34659. — AlexSm 01:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Done after confirming it works correctly in our current version. Anomie 04:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It should be "newbie" without ending "s". — AlexSm 18:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
D'oh! Sorry. Anomie 23:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Multi-select namespaces?[edit]

Can we get a feature to select multiple namespaces in recentchanges in the future? It gets a pain to track all talk pages amongst many edits, this would be also a good function. --UnregisteredUser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.132.97.56 (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes link[edit]

Should a link to Special:PendingChanges be added to the "Utilities" row? HueSatLum ? 00:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes search[edit]

FYI - A new tool has been created at http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/rcsearch.html which allows arbitrary searches through the recent changes table, with some additional search options that don't appear on Special:RecentChanges. Take a look and let me know if you have any questions/comments. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 01:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional filters[edit]

  • well not sure this is the best place for such a request but after a thorough search it's where I landed so here it goes. I would like to propose a change to the filters on Recent Changes. I am old school using no tools or add-on's so what I've found I needed to help faster vandalism identification via |Recent Changes is to have the following filters added to the options list

Show last 50 | 100 | 250 | 500 changes in last 1 | 3 | 7 | 14 | 30 days Hide minor edits | Show bots | Hide anonymous users | Hide logged-in users | Hide my edits | Show additions only | Show subtractions only | Hide Talk pages | Hide User pages | Show new changes starting from xx:xx, Month x, xxxx


They would be like| Hide/Show bots | toggles when selected. I've found the majority of vandalisms are anon IP's and generally within +10 to +500 characters and I believe, after some consideration, these additions would help me and other old school vandal patrolling users zero in on that spectrum. Geremy.Hebert (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

So the new items that you want are
| Show additions only | Show subtractions only | Hide Talk pages | Hide User pages |
Do these filters already exist somewhere? If not, I don't know how that could be done. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah that's it, I was wondering if I had conveyed that properly. | Show/Hide additions | Show/Hide subtractions |I think would be sufficient as talk, portal, and user pages are pretty rare. I don't know whether there are other tools with these options enabled but I would like to remain browser based strictly through wikipedia interface.Geremy.Hebert (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
You could filter the page with a user script of some sort; otherwise adding such things would require a change to MediaWiki which is beyond the power of a {{editprotected}} request. Anomie 03:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Unwatched changes[edit]

It may be of interest to include a link for Unwatched changes. Toolserver lags though :-(. — Dispenser 18:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Last Battle[edit]

I am putting his here because the talk page is screwed up somehow and I could not get to it. (Maybe this is an alternate way to the talk page?) Technically, the war of 1812 was over when this battle happened, wasn't it? So when the article says it was the last battle of the war, it really happened after the war was over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talkcontribs) 21:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

How is the tag filter field used?[edit]

Help on this, please? --JadeGuardian (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Tags. Let's say that you're in Special:RecentChanges but you are only interested in edits which blanked an entire section. Notice that there's a link in "Tag filter"; click on that link, and note that the tag you're interested in is "Section blanking". You would then return to Special:RecentChanges, enter that tag in the Tag filter box and click Go, which takes you here. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so is it possible to use multiple filters at once, to, say, see section blanking and BLP vandalism on the same page, at the same time? (Just 2 random examples) Thank you, --JadeGuardian (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Req for Malayalam[edit]

Pls add ml:Special:RecentChanges as well! --Manuspanicker (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

New RfA pages?[edit]

Is there any way to track when a new page with the prefix "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/" is created? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is possible using Recent Changes (since you can't filter for New Pages), however this toolserver tool should do the trick. Storkk (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Current Revision[edit]

The page should show whether or not the changes are current, as seen in a user's contribution page. This would allow for more efficient reversion of vandalism, as a user would not be trying to revert vandalism that someone else has already reverted. BenYes? 00:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that would be a good idea, but most of the edits already are current, as they are recent changes. Saying that an edit is current would certainly clutter up the page, but saying that an edit is not current would be better. Piguy101 (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Article is biased[edit]

Just looking at the first paragraph shows the article to be politically biased against the mine, voicing only what "opponents" say in the first paragraph and practically nothing about what the mine's "proponents" have to say about it throughout the article. What benefits the mine might produce, although very scantily covered, are buried way down in something like the 8th section of the article. With such a hotbed issue locally Wikipedia appears to have taken a political stance on the issue rather than providing objective information. Nothing is mentioned in the article about the tax revenues the mine would produce or the potential tax revenue impact on the local school district, for example. Nothing is mentioned about the demand for copper and to what degree the mine could fulfill that demand. These are just examples of missing information, but the proponents of the mine have published enough opinion pieces in the newspapers that it should not be difficult to research, that is, if someone is actually interested in improving the quality and reputation of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backwardlook (talkcontribs) 13:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)