Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia. Bug reports and feature requests should be made in Phabricator (see how to report a bug). Bugs with security implications should be reported differently (see how to report security bugs).

Newcomers to the technical village pump are encouraged to read these guidelines prior to posting here. If you want to report a JavaScript error, please follow this guideline. Questions about MediaWiki in general should be posted at the MediaWiki support desk.

« Archives, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214

RfC: should the "Authority control" template continue to include MusicBrainz identifiers?

Should {{Authority control}} continue to include MusicBrainz identifiers? 08:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Basics and technicalities

The {{Authority control}} template, usually found as last of the navigation templates at the bottom of Wikipedia articles, lists a series of internally linked authority control systems, each followed by an external link to the identifier for the topic of the Wikipedia article in that system. These are international systems of one-of-a-kind unique identifiers which as well distinguish topics with a similar name, as that they identify the preferential name for a topic within a system. Example (using Bibliothèque nationale de France identifiers): Engelbert Humperdinck (composer) → BnF 13895404h Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) → BnF 13970123h Engelbert Humperdinck (album) → BnF 378510480 MusicBrainz is a WP:USERGENERATED website, which has separate pages on various music-related topics. The URL of each page ends on a multi-digit code, which works similarly as an identifier in an authority control system, e.g.: Engelbert Humperdinck (composer) → 30060b66-4ed3-47a5-89d7-cb4f13437441 discography at MusicBrainz Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) → 62c28bc0-f696-4c50-8e54-5f8e9120bdb8 discography at MusicBrainz Engelbert Humperdinck (album) → 8d4abd6-580d-45f1-8ba6-1d2bb1ad245f at MusicBrainz (list of releases) Wikidata is the international authority control system of Wikimedia projects (including Wikipedias in all available languages, Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, ...). It is recognised by other international authority control systems, e.g.: VIAF 71578307 links to Engelbert Humperdinck (Q55010). Likewise, MusicBrainz's page on the composer (see link above) links to that same Wikidata item. The Wikidata item on the composer is not accessed directly from the {{Authority control}} box at the bottom of the composer's article: the Wikidata item on the composer is accessed via the Wikidata item link in the left margin of the article (which is always present, whether or not the {{Authority control}} box is placed). By default, an {{Authority control}} box placed in an article retrieves its content from the corresponding Wikidata item, that is: the box lists and links the authority control records of the systems accepted by the template (see list of tracking categories), when the corresponding Wikipedia item contains a value, a.k.a. property, of such an external authority control system. Values for external links in the box can be overridden locally, but once a value for the property has been defined in the Wikidata item, the listing and linking of the external authority control system can not be omitted from an {{Authority control}} box once it is placed in an article. For clarity: the RfC question is not about omitting authority control identifiers from Wikidata, but on whether or not MusicBrainz identifiers should be kept as tracking categories in Wikipedia's {{Authority control}} box.

Previous (much broader) RfC: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 148#RfC: authority control (Dec. 2018 to Feb. 2019: came to no conclusion about the MusicBrainz identifier which at that time was already included in the {{Authority control}} box).

Previous related discussions: Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 21#MusicBrainz (May-June 2018; "external link" aspect, discussion without formal closure: did not result in a change w.r.t. acceptability of linking to MusicBrainz pages as part of an "External links" list). Around the same time proposals regarding a selective display of some authority control identifiers, while omitting others, was extensively discussed at Template talk:Authority control/Archive 7#Suppressing local display via null parameters – without resulting in anything.

Last discussion on the topic (leading to this RfC): Template talk:Authority control#MusicBrainz

Survey

• No – my main reason for this stance is the over-all low quality of too many MusicBrainz pages linked from Wikipedia (examples can be given if needed – in the preparation to this RfC I asked if *anyone* could give me an example of a good, or at least decent, MusicBrainz page, which remained an "unanswered question"); Note that that previous argument is about the *actual* low quality of these pages, not merely about their WP:USERGENERATED status, which is of course a further argument; Further the BBC website does not seem to link to Wikipedia via MusicBrainz very often any more (only one example where they currently do could be given in the preliminary talks, after I had already given a counterexample); Further, the argument that Wikipedia should link to MusicBrainz mainly for its "authority control" characteristics does not outdo Wikipedia's policy against organising linkfarms (WP:NOTLINKFARM – keep links such as MusicBrainz in the Wikidata system where they can be accessed after one click from the Wikipedia article); The actual MusicBrainz identifiers are *longer* than what is displayed in the authority control box, respectively "artist/30060b66-4ed3-47a5-89d7-cb4f13437441", "artist/62c28bc0-f696-4c50-8e54-5f8e9120bdb8" and "release-group/18d4abd6-580d-45f1-8ba6-1d2bb1ad245f" for the examples given in the "Basics and technicalities" summary above: in other words the MusicBrainz system is not *actually* an Authority control system unless these longer names are used, and currently the MusicBrainz identifiers are already considerably longer than those of other identifiers in the authority control box; I would be open to any system that defaults to "no MusicBrainz" in the {{Authority control}} template and allows local override for those who checked the corresponding MusicBrainz page as being decent enough to link from Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The claim that "the BBC website does not seem to link to Wikipedia via MusicBrainz very often any more " seems to based on a basic misunderstanding of how the BBC use Musicbrainz, and as such is a straw man argument. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

    Illustrating by an example, Pini di Roma (a composition with a Wikipedia article):

    • Has a MusicBrainz page: "Pini di Roma, P 141 – Symphonic poem" at MusicBrainz (information and list of recordings)
    • Has a BBC page – which does link to the Wikipedia article on the composition, but does not link to the aformentioned MusicBrainz page.

    ... which illustrates that BBC does not link to MusicBrainz very often. In fact, I couldn't find a single BBC page on a composition that links to MusicBrainz (although such pages usually link to Wikipedia). Note that it is also not possible to get from the MusicBrainz page on the Pini di Roma composition to the BBC page on the same topic. BBC pages on a composer seem to link to MusicBrainz more often... but such pages usually link to Wikipedia way higher on the page than where they link to MusicBrainz. The whole rationale of MusicBrainz pages being some sort of authority control system which brings Wikipedia and BBC nearer to each other seems, to say the least, a bit exaggerated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

    • Like I said: a basic misunderstanding of how the BBC use Musicbrainz; and a straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• No. The template should link to a small group of reliable, high quality, relevant, non-commercial, non-wiki databases. Even without things liks musicbrainz, it has way too many useless links (for enwiki readers) already, links from national libraries which are not in English and not in a language or country relevant for the subject, but which happen to be an authority control. Links which are added by default should be very, very limited. Wikidata is the perfect location to function as linkfarm for all these, from the truly authoritative to the near-junk ones (Quora?); enwiki should restrict this to much less than we have now, and excluding things like the wiki Musicbrainz is a good start. See for example Odilon Redon, French 19th century artist, not a musician by any stretch: there are 28 links already in the authority control template there, including musicbrainz. Such linkfarms don't help our readers one bit (e.g. [1]), changing this to a select, limited group of truly useful links would be a serious improvement. Fram (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• No, although referred to as an open encyclopedia, Musicbrainz has lots of user generated content and I don't think it is actually a reliable source. Also we're not a link farm → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 10:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• No – A lot is user-generated and therefore not a reliable source. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• No, per all the rationale given above.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• No Low quality, user-generated "data" and completely circular (copies the Wikipedia article for the subject). It has no business being in an authority control any more than IMDb does, in fact less. Voceditenore (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "no business being in an authority control any more than IMDb does" Indeed. We should add IMDb to {{Authority control}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. Firstly, I'm very disappointed in the amount of misinformation that has been used in this discussion and the preceding preliminary discussion, so I'll start with a point-by-point rebuttal of all the arguments presented in the previous comments.
  • Francis doesn't give any examples of low quality pages; "quality" seems to be subjective and undefined in his comment. The two most sensible ways to measure quality in this context would probably be completeness and correctness; most similar databases cannot achieve the former to begin with, and MusicBrainz does not frequently contain errors (contrary to Francis's implication). For example, if you go to the page for an artist like The Carpenters, data exists for multiple releases of all their studio albums, as well as a large number of their compilation albums, with information for each track on each release and tracks on multiple releases being deduplicated where necessary (that is, they all have unique identifiers). The data is incomplete (since it does not contain all of their singles and does not contain the information about every release or the full credits of every single recording and composition), but it isn't wrong, and the latter is a more useful measure since it would be unreasonable to expect a music database to be complete.
    • I would also note that all the examples that Francis was actually able to give at Template talk:Authority control#MusicBrainz were invalid because they were apparently dependent on misunderstandings of the user interface. In my second reply to him there I responded to those examples.
  • Why is it relevant that the BBC doesn't link to Wikipedia via MusicBrainz? It's largely a red herring because it confers no reliability either way.
  • The length of the identifiers is completely irrelevant to their reliability and I'm surprised that it was even mentioned. {{Authority control}} usually takes up less area on the page than the infobox (even with dozens of identifiers) and is much less noticeable. If someone actually wanted to complain about the format of the links they had years to do it before this RfC.
  • The identifiers are unique both with and without the prefixes, because MusicBrainz assigns 128-bit UUIDs randomly and they are expected to be unique over any vaguely reasonable timeframe (collisions are not expected until about 10¹⁵ IDs have been generated). I don't know if the software actually handles collisions, but it should be unnecessary for some millions of years. Removing the prefixes in no way makes MusicBrainz less of an authority control (although there are certainly better reasons to argue that it isn't).
  • Manual checking for MusicBrainz links is not necessary, because the site has not been demonstrated to be uniquely unreliable among the websites linked to in {{Authority control}}.
  • MusicBrainz is one of many databases in the AC template and does not by itself usually make a significant difference to the number of identifiers, unless there are no or only a few other identifiers (in which case it's obviously not clutter). If {{Authority control}} needs to be downsized then that can be achieved with a much broader RfC; removing MusicBrainz – or any other individual database – would do basically nothing to address the issue. The links to national libraries are irrelevant to this discussion. (This appears to be Fram's only argument?)
  • The fact that MusicBrainz is not a reliable source is irrelevant to its inclusion in the template, even though some AC databases can be treated as reliable secondary or tertiary sources, because the template hosts external links and not sources. The template does not have any policy- or guideline-defined inclusion criteria that do not apply to any other templates; even if the links to MusicBrainz are removed from {{Authority control}}, the MusicBrainz-specific external link templates will still exist and will continue to be used.
  • The fact that MusicBrainz quotes Wikipedia articles (automatically, through a caching system based on MusicBrainz's links to Wikidata and Wikipedia) has no bearing on whether or not it should be used in the template. It is primarily for the convenience of MusicBrainz users, and it does not affect the site in a way meaningful to its inclusion in {{Authority control}}. Jc86035 (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• (continued) Now that that's out of the way, this is why I would actually support the continued inclusion of MusicBrainz.
  • Firstly, there are no policies or guidelines which apply only to {{Authority control}}, which in terms of the applicable policies and guidelines can be treated primarily as an external link template. As such, since MusicBrainz external links will continue to be allowed regardless of the outcome of this RfC, there are no policy- or guideline-based reasons to disallow MusicBrainz links specifically.
  • MusicBrainz is sort of an oddball in the AC template, being the only website with user-generated content. However, this is not in and of itself a reason to remove it, because its inclusion can otherwise be justified, and the template does not have any guideline-defined inclusion criteria (other than those which were set by the previous RfC, which left the inclusion of MusicBrainz as an open question).
  • The purpose of {{Authority control}}, and AC in general, is to assign unique identifiers to entities. MusicBrainz generally accomplishes this, although this is obviously not unique to MusicBrainz. MusicBrainz identifiers, especially those for artists and works, are generally stable. In cases where there are duplicate entities, the older entity is usually the one retained. Additionally, artist identifiers are automatically removed after a week if they do not have any relationships to other entities, which means that they are always minimally identifiable; and MusicBrainz has a version control system which requires multiple users to agree for certain changes (including all destructive changes, such as merges and deletions).
    • The quality of MusicBrainz data may not be directly comparable to that of another database's data, because most similar databases do not make public and/or do not calculate statistics on their own reliability. However, from the available data, it can at least be shown that errors in MusicBrainz are routinely corrected. For example, it is public information that several MusicBrainz artists are merged each day (after the usual one-week waiting period), and that the process is scrutinized by experienced users such that there is sometimes consensus not to merge. (More information about edits can be seen by registered users.)
  • There are several online databases which assign identifiers to musical works and associated entities, MusicBrainz being one of them. However, MusicBrainz is somewhat unique in seeking to create unique identifiers (whereas e.g. AllMusic does not clean up its duplicate track identifiers) and actually attempting to relate/link them in a structured manner. MusicBrainz is also by far the most comprehensive one to have a copyleft license, and likely as a result has many reusers of its data, the BBC being one of them. (The reason that the BBC gets mentioned in these discussions is that it directly uses MusicBrainz's identifiers and relationships as part of its content and URLs on a prominent part of its website.)
    • MusicBrainz's status of being the primary copyleft database in its field is somewhat similar to OpenStreetMap's status of being the primary copyleft map database. Although OpenStreetMap is also decidedly not a reliable source, it has nevertheless been used significantly throughout the Wikimedia projects, most notably in WikiMiniAtlas, GeoHack, and Kartographer and Kartotherian. The data of both projects has also been used by numerous third parties outside the Wikimedia projects.
  • There are several ISO identifiers for musical works: ISRC, ISMN and ISWC; these respectively correspond to MusicBrainz's recordings (one-to-one), works (not one-to-one) and works (one-to-one). (The AC template already links to an ISO identifier, ISIN.) However, using any of them in {{Authority control}} would likely be worse than using MusicBrainz, because their data is largely limited to products that were still being sold after the early 1990s, because ISRC and ISMN identifiers would rarely correspond one-to-one with Wikipedia articles, and because the primary ISWC website does not allow for direct links to identifiers. Furthermore, Wikidata's coverage of MusicBrainz is much broader than its coverage of these identifiers, so switching to another database would almost certainly result in a reduction in coverage. There are also no direct ISO analogues for the other six MusicBrainz types which the AC template currently uses.
  • While it's arguable that the AC template doesn't need any coverage of music-specific databases, it also doesn't necessarily need to link to any of the other databases that it links to. Additionally, it's often the case that MusicBrainz is the only existing identifier shown in {{Authority control}} for many pages (particularly albums) as a direct result of being the only domain-specific music database in the template.
  • In conclusion, MusicBrainz has a number of unique attributes due to its position as the primary copyleft music database, and its inclusion in {{Authority control}} can be justified due to those factors as well as the difficulty in being able to use a comparable amount of data from other music databases of comparable quality in the template. Jc86035 (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. Per Jc86035 - Premeditated (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Jc86035 makes a lot of sense here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• No per Fram and Voceditenore. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - per Jc86035. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• No - in the ones I’ve seen, the link to MB has not generally offered worthwhile content. Sergecross73 msg me 03:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Sergecross73: Do you have any examples in mind? (I'd also note that this is, strictly speaking, supposed to be more about the identifiers than the content.) Jc86035 (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes per Jc86035 who makes a good case for its inclusion and refutes the arguments presented against it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Per Jc86035 and more. There are two significant misapprehensions in this and prior discussions; which through previously refuted reappear here as misrepresentations. Firstly, the point of including an identifier in {{Authority control}} is not to cite anything - so that the link might fail WP:RS is immaterial. Secondly, the point of inclusion is not to provide "worthwhile content" - the links after all, are not in the "External links" section, so WP:EL does not apply. The point of inclusion is to assert authority, in the sense used at Authority control; in other words to verify identity and aid disambiguation. And for that purpose MusicBrainz is perfectly good. more than good, in fact; it is so well-suited to the role that - among many others - the BBC - an august and well-scrutinised public body - use it for that purpose. Furthermore, for many musicians and ensembles, it is the only external identifier that we have. As such, its removal would be disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe have a bit more trust in the sister project that handles authority control across Wikimedia projects? Wikidata's authority control files are trusted by VIAF, Library of Congress and whatnot. Every Wikipedia page is linked to its authority file, so that should be enough for the authority control aspect, no? Maybe add a few that have authority control files on a broad range of topics in the {{authority control}} box, but I don't see a problem with authority control being handled at Wikidata exclusively for those topics that pass GNG, but are not listed by any of the other broad authority control handlers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Where did I say anything about not having trust in Wikidata? You attempt to put words into my mouth: don't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes As an aggregate. And per Jc86035's extensive and careful analysis. Many of the arguments presented are red herrings since they apply to RS; this isn't meant to be a RS for content inclusion. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, it’s an aggregate where people may well be searching, and has the unique identifiers that lead users to the right person, and so on. I concur that this isn’t a RS issue, it’s merely a locator. Montanabw^(talk) 19:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes for appropriate subjects, No for inappropriate ones. I just came across a MusicBrainz entry for Grafton, New South Wales, something called a "MusicBrainz area ID" (d:Property:P982 – just look at the examples there!). The material for Grafton found at MB is unsurprisingly poor; it's simply a poor mirror of Wikimedia data. The music-related material at MB is often poor, but it's also often the easiest available such link in many articles, so there is some value. To me, the most annoying thing about it is the huge number. Reducing that to something like "MusicBrainz: ...4059a" would lessen its visual pollution. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Michael Bednarek: The reason that places are in the database is to link them to artists and creative works, so most of the interesting data is actually in the other tabs and not the landing page; e.g. Grafton is linked to five artists who have lived or performed there. Jc86035 (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  ... four of whom are thoroughly non-notable, and two of the three most famous singers from Grafton are not listed there. I think that's an indication of the generally poor quality of MB material. I've stricken my Yes above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: MusicBrainz is very much in the spirit of Wiki(p|m)edia, and providing pointers to find more free/libre non-commercial content is a good thing. The external link policy should really be clarified to emphasize that. The situation's the opposite when it comes to non-free/non-libre/commercial services: Template:IMDb, Template:Google books, Template:Infobox_YouTube_personality, and similar are all grossly inappropriate corporate native-advertising spam, even if their creators are acting in good faith: those need swift and thorough eradication from the encyclopedia. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 22:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• May I ask why VPT was chosen for this RFC? It's definitely not a technical issue. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Templates, and {{authority control}} is a template, are usually associated with the technical VP. The template is also programmed in Lua (Module:Authority control), which can only be changed if one has "technical competence" type of access permissions. Also, during preparation of this RfC the venue for the RfC was discussed, in which I defended VPT: see explanation there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  I don't accept any of that. You seem to have been the only person in favour of VPT as the venue. In short: what the heck is this doing here, why is it not at Template talk:Authority control? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, and while we're about it, it's not showing properly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies (or any of the others), so you could make a case for VPT being the venue to request an explanation as to just why the RfC isn't showing in the listings, but people usually post questions like that to User talk:Legobot, User talk:Legoktm or Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, where I explain the problem yet again. Hint: the RfC statement is not brief enough - that {{collapse top}}/{{collapse bottom}} won't help either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  That's a different matter, and would be glad with some assistance (that is, without changing the layout too much). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Would someone please delete this whole RfC so it can be posted at WP:VPR or somewhere else. VPT is not the place for a 30-day RfC, particularly when it's not a VPT issue. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  This is not the first RfC here, e.g. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 175#RfC: Alteration of Account Creation Limits/Account Creator Rights, and as said, Lua templates are a technical topic. If you don't want RfCs here, see to it that it is documented somewhere clear, and that you have a consensus on it before implementing. As for this RfC, it would imho be disruptive to move it now. I could agree with an early closure (2 weeks or so), that is: if the !votes continue to be more or less unanimous as they do now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  The issue is not with RfCs here in general. The issue is that RfCs should, as far as is practical, always be at the venue most applicable to the question being asked. This RfC question is about the content of a template, and so would be most appropriate at the template talk page or a project (talk) page relevant to that content. It would be appropriate here only if it was asking about technical aspects, e.g. of implementation but that the content in question is hosted on a lua template is completely irrelevant to the question being asked. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  See preliminary discussion: the previous RfC, which led to indecisiveness on the topic brought here, was "village pump" level, and holding an RfC on a topic that tries to outdo what was resulting from a previous RfC can hardly be held at a less visible place, in order not to be perceived as a more WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. And again, during the preparation process the venue was discussed. There were enough technical people following the discussion that could have brought any argument to initiate it elsewhere (the only suggestion to hold it elsewhere was given without rationale). So, I am sorry, and apologise for the inconvenience (although I see no explanation *why* it would be inconvenient), but oppose moving a well-prepared RfC elsewhere. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  The inconvenience is that those watching this page for actually germane discussions will be distracted by an irrelevant one. --Bsherr (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Notifying the participants in the preliminary discussion who haven't commented yet: Nikkimaria, Tacsipacsi, Pigsonthewing. Jc86035 (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• I've moved the thread below out of the Survey section since it's tangential to the RfC. Jc86035 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  Re. The Carpenters: if you'd think https://musicbrainz.org/artist/4580d83b-093e-4241-91fb-2dd71f5f1f3f a good external link, I'd prefer it to be displayed thus:

  The Carpenters discography at MusicBrainz.

  in an "External links" section, than as a mere linked code number (MusicBrainz: 4580d83b-093e-4241-91fb-2dd71f5f1f3f) in the authority control box. Further,

  The Carpenters at Muziekweb website.

  may be a better alternative in an external links section, for several reasons: e.g., data compiled by librarians (better than WP:USERGENERATED); record sleeves shown (without potential copyright violation issues, while a public library website); etc. Note that this website also has unique identification numbers, authority control style (what else would one expect from librarians?) More importantly, it is free-access, so in that sense certainly not less than MusicBrainz. This website is also publicity-free, at least more so than MusicBrainz which links to quite a few commercial websites. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Francis Schonken: Muziekweb only has one Wikidata property at the moment, Muziekweb performer ID (P5882), which is only used on 14,000 items (whereas MusicBrainz artist ID (P434) is used on 203,000). It also doesn't seem to have any data analogous to MusicBrainz's release groups, recordings, instruments or areas, and only has work/composition data for classical compositions. In terms of the breadth of data, it seems to have only about 300,000 albums/releases based on the highest used album IDs (an order of magnitude less than MusicBrainz's 2.5 million). While it certainly would be useful in its own right, its data isn't as well-interlinked as MusicBrainz's is because there isn't as much structural support for it. Jc86035 (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  None of which is relevant for The Carpenters, i.e. the example you gave. I say that, on average, MusicBrainz has low to very low quality. The numbers you give only seem to illustrate that: it has "quantity" written all over, not "quality". Fine-tuning an external links section starts, on almost any Wikipedia article, with weeding out cruft. In too many cases, the MusicBrainz link would be part of the cruft that can be thrown out on sight, and if not, like in The Carpenters' case, it can likely be replaced with something better (which I illustrated – Muziekweb of course not being the only free-access music-related online database which offers good quality). All of this illustrates that we should *not* have a MusicBrainz link willy-nilly when the article has a standard authority control feature. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Francis Schonken: Could you explain clearly how you think the Carpenters' page on Muziekweb is higher quality than the MusicBrainz page?

  In response to the reasons you gave in the previous comment:

  • Why would MusicBrainz be more prone to copyright issues? Neither site owns the copyright to the albums that they describe. Furthermore, because the Internet Archive hosts MusicBrainz's cover art, MusicBrainz is arguably less likely to be directly affected by copyright issues.
  • In MusicBrainz, the cover art is shown on the pages for the releases (but not the release groups, since the cover art for different releases can be different). I believe there is a user script which also shows them on artist pages.
  • It does probably help that their site is maintained by librarians, but that doesn't by itself make the site better for authority control. As aforementioned, their data is inherently less suitable for the AC template due to issues such as not having unique identifiers analogous to works and release groups.
  • Linking to commercial sites doesn't invalidate a database, and Muziekweb also links to YouTube and Spotify in any case.

  I also don't see how that was irrelevant to the example. Muziekweb doesn't have unique identifiers for any of the Carpenters' works or albums that would be directly analogous to the Wikipedia articles or Wikidata items, so the AC template can't link to the albums/releases unless counterpart Wikidata items are created and support is created within the AC module for using the data on the Wikidata items for editions of publications. Jc86035 (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  The Carpenters @ Muziekweb page has images; Carpenters @ MusicBrainz page has no images. → advantage Muziekweb

  • WP:USERGENERATED websites, such as MusicBrainz, are more easily liable to have copyright issues than websites by public bodies such as public libraries. → advantage Muziekweb
    • FYI, Internet Archive *has* copyright issues, so "Internet Archive hosts MusicBrainz's cover art" shoots in its own foot.
  • I was speaking about "sleeves" (i.e. front & back of the sleeve), which Muziekweb has systematically for all recordings; that is not the same as "cover art" (i.e. front side of the sleeve), which is what MusicBrainz seems to have exclusively for the pages I saw. → advantage Muziekweb
  • What are you going on about Muziekweb in the {{authority control}} template? I said MusicBrainz should be OUT of the AC template, while it may be acceptable as an external link in some cases, e.g. with the {{MusicBrainz artist}} template; I proposed Muziekweb as external link, i.e. outside the {{authority control}} box, as a viable replacement for such MusicBrainz link placed outside the {{authority control}} box. So I'm not going to reply to things I didn't suggest.
  • Re. "Linking to commercial sites doesn't invalidate a database" – another strawman: if given the choice between a website that carries publicity (e.g. MusicBrainz), and one that doesn't (e.g. Muziekweb), we'd normally prefer the latter (per, e.g., WP:LINKSTOAVOID, which has nothing to do with the "validity of a database"). → advantage Muziekweb

  --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  If you aren't proposing that Muziekweb should be used in {{Authority control}}, it's not relevant to this discussion. Both sites are currently already allowed as external links (by default) and are not going to be disallowed by this discussion, because that's not how you defined the RfC. I'm not going to respond further in this part of the thread since it's clearly off-topic and the arguments that you've presented have no relevance to the AC template. Jc86035 (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• To respond to an argument put forward by Jc86035 and others: as an external links template AC is subject to WP:EL. The bar for inclusion/exclusion is not "this link is never ever appropriate"; it's rather "in the majority of cases where this identifier exists, would its inclusion meet WP:EL"? The fact that it meets EL in some specific cases is a minimum standard but not sufficient for default inclusion in 125k articles and counting. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Yes, but then the burden of proof (per WP:NOCON) falls on those in favour of the change to demonstrate that a majority of the links are not appropriate. I imagine this could be shown if it were the case, e.g. by random sampling of the links, but "inappropriate" would have to be well-defined in this context before this could be done. For example, if a page is out of date because an artist is known to have died and they are unintentionally stated to be living (which I imagine happens occasionally), would that be considered inappropriate under WP:ELNO's second criterion?

  A careful reading of WP:ELNO would suggest that the vast majority of MusicBrainz's artist pages would be acceptable. MusicBrainz provides unique, interlinked identifiers and other data/links, which means criterion 1 doesn't apply for most pages; even if the data is incorrect, criterion 2 doesn't necessarily apply because it's not intentionally misleading; criterion 12 doesn't apply to MusicBrainz because it's well-established; and so on. Jc86035 (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Jc86035, NOCON states "In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them". ELNO would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis; I don't agree with making blanket statements given the variety in page contents. For example, in the case of Jan van Eyck, the major content provided by the MusicBrainz link is a mirror of Wikipedia, which fails ELNO12. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: (I previously updated my comment to remove the mention of NOCON. Since you reverted it, it stays.) I would disagree with that assessment of the Jan van Eyck page – the reason that his entity exists in MusicBrainz is for the completeness of the release Deinós Nekrómantis, which the relationships tab on his item links to. (A slightly modified version of part of his work Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych is used on the album cover, it seems.) That album doesn't have a Wikipedia article, so Wikipedia doesn't contain that information.

  This also doesn't make sense as a test to apply to authority control databases, because the reason we're linking to them (particularly the non-domain-specific ones) is for the identifiers, not the content. Even an individual VIAF entry could rarely be said to contain factual information not in a Wikipedia article aside from self-referential data. Jc86035 (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  To your first point, that's a reason for the van Eyck page to exist on MusicBrainz; that is not a reason it meets EL on Jan van Eyck. We're not here to decide what should happen on the MusicBrainz site, but whether we should include that site in this external links template. We're also not here to discuss more broadly the value of the AC template in general, but whether this specific link warrants inclusion per our guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: ELNO12 can't apply to any individual MusicBrainz page; it only applies to the whole site (per "open wikis"), and for all intents and purposes MusicBrainz is established enough (although it's not really a wiki). Could you explain why you think ELNO1 applies to the page?

  • Is the relationship to the album insufficient?
  • Is the unique identifier insufficient?
  • Is it an issue with the cached Wikipedia content? What if it were not present? (The content is shown automatically, and removing it would necessitate the removal of both the Wikipedia and Wikidata links.)

  Jc86035 (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Specifically the second part of ELNO12: "Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked". The van Eyck entry at MusicBrainz is primarily a mirror of the Wikipedia article. If the Wikipedia content were removed then ELNO12 would not apply, but the link still wouldn't warrant inclusion at Jan van Eyck per EL. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Are you seriously suggesting that the entirety of MusicBrainz is primarily a Wikipedia mirror or that the item primarily exists for the purpose of being a Wikipedia mirror? It's not even a deliberate editorial choice, and it doesn't even show the entire article.

  Anyway, the reasons that authority control sites are linked to (which matter in this context and can't be dismissed just because the RfC is specific to MusicBrainz) would generally fulfill at least one of ELYES3, ELMAYBE3 and ELMAYBE4. (Additionally, the reasons listed in WP:EL seem to be written with the intent of being applied to pages with prose or media, and not databases, which might hinder their applicability.) Jc86035 (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  No, I'm seriously suggesting that this particular entry is primarily a Wikipedia mirror. It doesn't particularly matter whether that's by editorial choice or automatic. If you'd like to go propose changes to EL that are tailored to databases go ahead, but as written MusicBrainz does not blanket-meet the criteria you outline. It might on particular articles, but what we're currently discussing is whether we should automatically include it on a wide range. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: ELNO12 only refers to sites as a whole, not individual pages. (In the interest of completeness: A mirror of Wikipedia is a site which has deliberately copied every article, which MusicBrainz hasn't done. MusicBrainz editors don't change the Wikipedia content after it's cached, so MusicBrainz isn't a fork of Wikipedia either.) Jc86035 (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Referring to what? Jc86035 (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  The claim that ELNO12 only refers to sites as a whole. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: ELNO states: "[…] one should generally avoid providing external links to: […] Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." I'm not particularly familiar with the guideline, but my understanding of it is that the quoted text as written refers only to entire websites (since a single page would not be considered a mirror or a fork of Wikipedia). Only 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 16, I think, could be considered to refer to individual pages on third-party websites. Jc86035 (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  The text you quote does not specify entire websites. It's quite possible to mirror a Wikipedia article on a single page of a site, and for that single page on the site to not be an appropriate external link on that article. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Pigsonthewing: In the interest of clarity: I'm not entirely sure if it's appropriate to claim that WP:EL doesn't apply to {{Authority control}} at all, since it would mean that that one template would be in a class of its own separate from references and general external links. WP:EL is silent on the matter, and I don't know if there has been consensus on whether or not the guideline applies in this case. (Although, technically, linking to the Wikidata statements instead would resolve the issue entirely, since the template would link to Wikidata regardless through the pencil.) Jc86035 (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Why are signatures not added automatically in talk pages.

One of my first memories from using wikipedia is somebody adding my signature through some kind of {{unsigned}} template and asking me to add it in the future. So I ask the question, why are comments in a talk page not automatically signed? I think it's a good case study for wikipedia's lack of rules set in stone. My explanation is that most software contains rules that are imposed by the developers, the company, the code. On wikipedia communities implement rules either by social means or by third party automation that have the same interface and privileges as regular users (bots). This would serve to avoid biasing wikipedia in favour of those with technical acumen.

Thanks for your attention, Tomás — Preceding unsigned comment added by TZubiri (talk • contribs) 06:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Well that was ironic. Elizium23 (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It's an unnecessary little complication in a system that has complications galore. And yes, I am omitting rather than forgetting the four tildes for this reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs) 07:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Users can edit the whole page, some parts are not "comments" on many pages, and some edits should not be signed. Wikipedia:Flow is an alternative discussion software with clearly defined posts and no manual signing but it's unpopular and not enabled at the English Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thankfully. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Off topic: I for one like Flow (random example), but only dislike how it takes up so much space. Would be great if it could use up less [vertical] space, probably by reducing the header size, and maybe move the username to the beginning of the posts... Hopefully someone would start an RFC on why they don't like Flow, and perhaps it would be first steps of enabling it here. Rehman 12:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe having a notice when saving the page, that could be disabled using preferences, like the one that comes up when you don't enter an edit summary (if it's enabled), could be useful for new users. – BrandonXLF (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Tomás, the Talk Pages Project is developing a reply system that automatically signs and indents, and is designed to fit with existing wikitext structure and prevailing social conventions. It's available as a beta feature in French, Arabic, Dutch and Hungarian wikipedias. (Checking that link, I see they’ve just released version 2.0!) You can still do section edits so it’s not an on/off choice like Structured Discussions (Flow).

[Shh, don’t tell anyone, but it seems you can use v1.0 on en-wp by appending ?dtenable=1 to the URL. The "dt" stands for Discussion Tools which is the MediaWiki extension that implements this. It should create a "Reply" link after each post, similar to the ReplyLinks script. I’m doing it right now. ;)]

— Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (21:03 Thu 28, AEST) 11:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm really loving the Reply tool.

Anyone who's interested should please put WP:Talk pages project on your watchlist (and maybe even occasionally nudge me to update it – let's see, it basically works, version 2 is on the Beta Cluster if you know the secret ?dtvisual=1 URL code, and we still don't have a date for when it might be available as a regular Beta Feature here). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Why does it put an EL (Reply) into the tag? Can't it use the normal Wikilink syntax (Reply)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a normal link on my screen? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It's got the arrow-out-of-box EL icon, due to this (partial) rule:

.mw-parser-output .external {
  background-image: url(/w/skins/Vector/resources/skins.vector.styles/images/external-link-ltr-icon.png?325de);
}

so the icon is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/skins/Vector/resources/skins.vector.styles/images/external-link-ltr-icon.png?325de

I find that MediaWiki:Tag-discussiontools-reply uses external link syntax, the destination is set by MediaWiki:Discussiontools-replywidget-reply-link which definitely contains an EL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Why does it display the arrow in your account but not in mine? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Firefox can't display infobox images in the preview of pages

Hello, here on Debian 11, Firefox 68.7 ESR can display images in the "Page previews" feature only if those images are hosted by Commons, but the images whether free or non-free, which are hosted on Wikipedia (en and other languages) are not shown in the pages preview. I don't know about Google Chrome or Chromium, it can be tested for example on Patrick_Swayze#Film and Category:1990s crime thriller films. To editor Ahunt: Hello, if you have latest version of Google Chrome or Chromium installed on a Linux system, please check them for this problem and report their status, thanks.--Editor-1 (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry don't have either, but I can tell you that the page previews, including the images, work for images on both Commons and Wikipedia on Firefox 76.0.1 on Lubuntu, so I suspect it must be an issue with either the ESR version of Firefox or something in Debian. - Ahunt (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Works fine on Debian 10 with Firefox 68.7.0esr on WSL. There is never a popup for categories when using Page previews and the page image at Patrick_Swayze#Film is hosted on the commons. Try Cadillac, the page image is hosted on the enwiki. – BrandonXLF (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrandonXLF: "There is never a popup for categories when using Page previews" It is wrong, the feature I am talking about is located at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering under Reading preferences:
"Page previews (get quick previews of a topic while reading a page)"
and it works also in categories, my problem is that non-free infobox images, e.g. films articles, are not shown in the pop-up/balloon when using Firefox on this system.
"Page previews and the page image at Patrick_Swayze#Film is hosted on the commons."
just its infobox image is hosted on the commons, not the listed films.--Editor-1 (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Editor-1, I see what you mean, I thought you meant the links to Patrick_Swayze#Film and Category:1990s crime thriller films weren't working, not the links on those pages. Do you have any specific links that don't work for you? – BrandonXLF (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrandonXLF: Sir, as I said "non-free infobox images, e.g. films articles, are not shown in the pop-up/balloon when using Firefox on this system" and it applies to all the articles that have a non-free image in their infobox.

Not someone else have this problem?!--Editor-1 (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any scripts or extensions installed in Firefox? Those can sometimes cause unpredictable effects. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): No, I don't have any extension, it is vanilla Firefox.--Editor-1 (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

CSS issues

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T253905

WP:ITSTHURSDAY; the sidebar seems to have collapsed and the tabs are gone. (Firefox 73.0) Enterprisey (talk!) 19:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Enterprisey, Yup. Same here (Chrome-mobile) ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Same. (Chrome 81.0.4044.138, Windows 10) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Win Chrome desktop. The "Read/Edit/New section/View history" tabs are tiny and in the far upper right corner. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed for me now, rollback seems to have worked. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Enterprisey, had the same issue until a minute ago. (Edge Chromium 85.0.528.0, Windows 10) andritolion (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it Thursday?

I just stated noticing that many pages are rendering with the left-hand nav bar all scrunched up. See attached screenshot. Not every page, but most pages. Emptying my browser cache had no effect. Thursday? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Section combined with above. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

All views except main page corrupted

Moved from Talk:Main Page

 – —⁠andrybak (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The main page displays ok but all other pages have corrupt headings and left sidebar. Downsize43 (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems to have come good now. Downsize43 (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that this is related to the mw:Desktop improvements project. They've put some of it up at the private office.wiki. The rearranged the logo in the corner a bit. At first, I didn't notice it, but when I did, it was really obvious ...for about four or five days. Now I don't notice it again. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

PageViews/adblocker

Here has suddenly stopped, and now just tells me "Looks like you are using an ad blocker!" etc. Any idea why? ——Serial ^# 06:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Just tell your adblocker not to run on the site. Works for me with adblocker disabled. SD0001 (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: A lot of ad blockers don't like strings like "pageviews" in URLs as they think they're being used for tracking or serving ads. The easiest solution is to turn your ad blocker off on that page. --Deskana (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Deskana and SD0001: Thanks both. Yes, of course; I was really wondering why its suddenly decided to do this when for the last few week its been no trouble at all, with no hint of a problem with adblocking... ——Serial ^# 10:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: It happened following the recent move to pageviews.toolforge.org. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That would explain it; thanks for the update MusikAnimal. Happy Animalizing! ——Serial ^# 16:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Block, but twinkle doesn't send message

Resolved

 – No idea why it failed three time, but it worked the fourth time--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to block an editor. User talk:Habelgmsa

I've tried three times, but no block message appears. Any thoughts on why not?S Philbrick(Talk) 14:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I unblocked, because it would be rude to block and not leave a message.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Seeing that I was able to drop a message just fine, the issue is not with Twinkle, have you checked the "Add block template to user talk page"? Furthermore, you can always add a new section and paste in the template yourself (such as {{subst:Uw-pblock}}), that's much more viable than unblocking. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

QEDK, I've never had this problem before. I see "Add block template to user talk page" and it is checked. I tried again, and of course it worked fine now. so not sure what happened the first three times. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

No pressure, if it happens again consider leaving a note at WT:TW. :) --qedk (t 愛 c) 05:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"Search Wikipedia" missing page titles

Can anyone else reproduce this thing I see today (on desktop, with both Firefox and Chrome), where searching from the top right-hand bar on any enwiki page (including the Main Page, but not including wikipedia.org) shows no bolded autocomplete results for "2018 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina" even when you type/paste the whole title? The page exists, but you would never know it from autocomplete until you hit Enter/clicked the magnifying glass icon. Airbornemihir (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It's the same for me. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 181#Possible issues with search function and phab:T253114 are similar but about recent articles, and they do show up after the complete title is typed, e.g. 2006 LNBP season. 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina got the title in December 2018.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I just observed the same thing with 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio. Airbornemihir (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

2018 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina and 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio currently show up for me in search suggestions when the complete title is typed, but not before the last character. On 30 May the first article never showed up. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I'm now seeing what you're seeing. It might be because of a change that was reported on the phabricator discussion you linked. I'm glad they looked into this, but in my opinion it's still a little messy for autocomplete to wait until the last letter - it defeats most of the purpose of autocomplete. Airbornemihir (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

reFill glitch

Hello. The reFill site is having difficulty with filling in AllMusic references. Thank you! Caro7200 (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Caro7200, Can you explain what the problem is or what happened when you used the script?,

If you saw the message "success" (see right picture) then this means nothing needed doing for that article, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah sorry misunderstood what you meant, Good job MarnetteD spotted this! (Thanks M! :)). –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This thread might be relevant Template talk:AllMusic#Set field question. Numerous of our articles have Allmusic templates as a ref ({{Allmusic|class=album|id=r43760/review|pure_url=yes}}) . As you can see this renders as a bare url in the ref section

References

Editors see this and slap a "link rot" tag on the article. But, since the ref is actually in a cite template both refill and reflinks ignore it. The fix is to change the "pure_url=yes" to "pure_url=no" in the template. You will see at the thread I linked to that I asked if the default could be changed to no to avoid this problem but the conversation petered out with no change being made. Now Caro7200's post might be about something different and, if it is, in the immortal words of Emily Litella "never mind" :-) MarnetteD|Talk 20:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both. Well, I noticed it on 5/30. I use reFill pretty much every day, often with AllMusic refs. The little red error box appears. Reflinks will still fill the url. If I see it again, I'll note more specifically what the problem is. Caro7200 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's just the little red "could not fetch page" error. But it only just started the past few days. Caro7200 (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That can happen Caro7200 with various refs not just Allmusic. AFAIK what you describe happens with refill not reflinks so we might be confusing the tools. I am not sure what is causing it so hopefully another editor can fill us in. If you've used both tools and they haven't worked you can also try Citer. There is the occasional ref that no tool will fix and you just have to deal with them manually. MarnetteD|Talk 16:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, thanks, I meant that it has only started happening with AllMusic the past few days. It happened again today. Just seemed to be a new problem in regard to reFill specifically, thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Search for unicode punctuation?

Is there any way to search for uses of specific unicode punctuation? I'm looking for edits that contain U+201E ('DOUBLE LOW-9 QUOTATION MARK') as part of a sockpuppet investigation. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried searching for insource:/„/ like Help:Searching#Search string syntax suggests? It seems to work for me. —Cryptic 17:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Cryptic, Yup, that works. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Naypta#Cassiopeia's archives

Moved from WP:ANI

 – –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Naypta#Cassiopeia's archives. Interstellarity (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

The correct forum for asking technical help questions is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate and Davey2010: My apologies for posting to the wrong forum. Just a quick question and I don't want to seem like a beginner on Wikipedia. How do I know which forum is the best place to get help with Wikipedia? Interstellarity (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Interstellarity, Please read the above introductory bit on each board which explains what each board is to be used for, If you're stuck you're more than welcome to ask at WP:Help Desk who may be able to point you in the right place, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Thank you for your explanation. I think the help desk seems to be the best place to start if I'm not sure where to go. They can probably direct me where to go from there. Interstellarity (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia, Naypta, and Interstellarity: This seems to have been sent around various talk pages (unrelated user talk pages, ANI, VPT, and apparently HD) - but since I can't find it at HD, I'll try to explain here. But first, please note: when you have a query about the actions of a bot, your first port of call should be the talk page for the bot concerned, even if it redirects to another page, perhaps the talk page of the bot operator. In this case the bot is ClueBot III (talk · contribs) and its operator is Cobi (talk · contribs).

When CASSIOPEIA (talk · contribs) was renamed Cassiopeia (talk · contribs) back in March, and the user, user talk and archive pages moved accordingly, the |archiveprefix=User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive parameter of the {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} should have been amended as well. But apparently this didn't happen for some weeks, so in the meantime, ClueBot III was at something of a loss to work out which archive was the current one. I'm guessing that it's trying all archives until it finds one that hasn't yet hit the limit set by |maxarchsize=75000. I'm a bit puzzled as to why |numberstart= seems to be stuck at 1, when I think that it should now be at 45. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta, Interstellarity, Redrose64, Davey2010, and NinjaRobotPirate: Greetings. Thank you guys for helping and try to solve my achieve issue. I understand Naypta has info ClueBot III of this issue at Discussion at User talk:Naypta#Cassiopeia's archives and I hope the issue will be solved soon. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Hey, yep, this has been doing the rounds everywhere - I only spotted it the last time it came to AN. As Cassiopeia notes above, I've left a message at ClueBot Commons already, before Interstellarity noted the thread at ANI and it was moved here.

As regards |numberstart=, the indication here is that it's the default archive start number, which seems like it ought to be left at one. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Any way to change or suppress a keyboard shortcut for this script?

I recently installed the script User:P999/Toggle VF.js, which creates a narration-friendly version of a page suitable for download. The problem I have right now is that the keyboard shortcut to create the page, Alt+⇧ Shift+V, also happens to be the shortcut for editing in VisualEditor. Is there a way to alter or suppress the shortcut for this script? I looked at the code but can't figure out where it defines the shortcut combination. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, it's the line var prntVF = mw.util.addPortletLink ( 'p-coll-print_export', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=' + currpgName + '&printable=yes', "Printable VF", "p-VF", "Voice-friendly version for printing [v]","v");, specifically the "v" (see Help:Customizing toolbars), you can alter it by changing the letter to the desired key and you can remove it by removing the argument completely. – BrandonXLF (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

BrandonXLF, thanks! I tried to give it the shortcut Alt+⇧ Shift+B by substituting both instances of "v" (one in quotation marks, one in square brackets) with "b", but it didn't seem to work. I'm fine with that, as my original shortcut for the VisualEditor has been restored. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, normally the shortcut doesn't include shift, so Alt + B should work. – BrandonXLF (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Resolved. BrandonXLF, thank you so much for your help; this solves my problem and makes it convenient for me. As a little nugget that I would like to store away in my head for future reference, what causes the default shortcut to take Alt+⇧ Shift+V instead of Alt+V? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, combination of the modifier keys depends on the browser. See Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Andrybak; I'll have a look at that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Pageview stats down

I've just noticed that the pageview stats are down for yesterday. They also seem to have missed a few other days prior. Would this be able to be fixed and the views for the missing days be displayed please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed User:BernsteinBot has been having issues for a couple days getting its daily edit counts. It doesn't look like replication lag is terrible right now (<5min), but I wonder if those two issues aren't interrelated somehow. VanIsaac_WS^cont 07:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it normal that yesterday's page views haven't been added this early? The article has around 3 daily views so the 0 on May 28 and 29 is plausible. All other tested articles show views those days. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Normally it's done by now. But you can see there is erratic reporting so it looks to me like there's a problem with the tool. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal (WMF): --Izno (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be working now providing you just look at the one day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@The C of E: I am not seeing any "missing" pageviews. The days prior are especially low by comparison so perhaps you're not noticing them? To better surface those you'll want to use the "Logarithmic scale" option (checkbox on the top-right just above the chart). The tool is capable of detecting when a logarithmic scale is appropriate and can show it automatically. To enable this, go to Settings > "Automatically use logarithmic scale if applicable". Indeed the article apparently received no views on May 28 and 29 (note also logarithmic scales do not have a zero value on the x-axis). Also, very recent data may not be available due to the normal 24+ hour lag in the pageviews pipeline. Hope this helps! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit with external CI Tools

Recently I have set up a github project that contains a script to edit Wikidata. I would like to use the CI website Travis CI to perform the edits as a CRON job. However, I ran into the problem that the IP address of Travis seems to be blocked as external proxy. Of course I wanted to perform the edits using my account, but it seems there is still somehow the access with the IP involved. Now my questions are:

• Is it possible to use Travis CI for edits in Wikimedia projects and somehow circumvent the global block?
• If not, does the Wikimedia infrastructure allow to set up and run CRON jobs, e.g. using the Wikimedia Cloud / Labs tools infrastructure?

Steak (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I am fairly certain Cloud VPS/Toolforge can do as suggested. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You basically have two options: Request local and global IP block exemption for your bot account, or run it from Toolforge. Toolforge supports recurring cron jobs both on the grid and in Kubernetes. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Template issue rendering

Template:Internet Archive film

Hi! This template has been unchanged since 2016, but doesn't seem to be working. The Green Promise has *{{Internet Archive film|id=The_Green_Promise|The Green Promise}}, which should render as a link to https://archive.org/details/The_Green_Promise, but instead it's directing to https://archive.org/details/The, and titling the link as Green Promise The Green Promise. Thanks for your assistance, -- Zanimum (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Zanimum:  Fixed after staring at the template documentation for a while. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, John of Reading! -- Zanimum (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-23

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• There is a new beta version of the Wikimedia Commons app for Android. It has a new zoom function when you look at images. It can also suggest places when you upload geotagged photos. [3]

Problems

• There was a problem with the Commons database on 27 May. Commons could not be edited for eight minutes. Because of this problem the database was moved. This caused another short read-only time on 29 May. [4][5][6]
• The Vector skin had a problem where you couldn't add links to the article in other languages. You couldn't see the section if there were no links to other languages already. It also removed content translation links and links to language settings. This has now been fixed. [7]

Changes later this week

• You can get a notification when someone links to a page you created. You can turn these notifications off for individual pages. You can soon turn them off also in the notifications you get. [8]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 June. It will be on all wikis from 4 June (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

22:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"Question mark" messing up a page link

If you look at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Five_Go_Down_to_the_Sea?, when you click, you don't end up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Five Go Down to the Sea?/archive1—where you should—but to the non-existant Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Five Go Down to the Sea. Note the lack of Q-mark in the latter. Can this be corrected? I assumed maybe put it in HTML, but that's as far as I go  :) cheers, ——Serial ^# 17:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Seril Number 54129: When I click where? I don't see a link that would cause you to end up in one place as opposed to another, just the link in the header. Do you have a gadget or script adding a link? --Izno (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: --Izno (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Izno,yes I do: Wikipedia:Nominations viewer. Does that make a difference? See in that image, in this case, wwhen i cick the "nomination" link, it takes to a non-existant page without the "?" rather thn the actual nom page which has a "?"...if you know what I mean...! ——Serial ^# 18:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: That usually happens because the script has a bug. You should let the script dev know. --Izno (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Check. Cheers Izno! ——Serial ^# 18:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I have reported it at Wikipedia talk:Nominations viewer#Question mark needs encoding. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Patch filed. SD0001 (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I see you sorted it, SD0001, and thanks for filing PrimeHunter. Nice one all! ——Serial ^# 16:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

When logged in on main page, top bar moves constantly

When I am logged in to Wikipedia on the main page, the navigation bar at the top keeps changing. The "View History" keeps moving in and out of the favorite button and the entire right side of the bar moves up and down. This happens ~once per second. My page size is 665x814 (half of my screen). Not sure if this should be on Phabricator.

--Worst Username (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

That would be phab:T71729. It's a now-infamous problem apparently. --Izno (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Worst Username: you should use a different zoom level if you can? But I don't know how readability will work on your end. –Aνδρέας ^{talk | contributions} 17:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

A different resolution will fix the issue irrespective of zoom level. --Izno (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Worst Username: I had that problem once with a certain window size, but it went away when I resized it. CrazyBoy826 22:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Not receiving email

I am not receiving mail sent through our internal system.I am aware that such emails are sent because I get an alert, but for the last couple months or so none have shown up in my inbox. I've checked the usual suspects — my social folder, promotions folder and my spam folder.

In my preferences the box with the label:

Allow other users to email me

Is checked.

Any thoughts?

Typical emails come from new users who are attempting to contact me about copyright issues. Because they are new and more interested in the copyright issue I haven't imposed on any of them to look at what happens at their end when they try to send me an email. Could I ask someone here (assuming you don't have an immediate solution) to try sending me an email to see what you see at your end?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sent a test and the "Copy of your email" email has been received.--Launchballer 17:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Launchballer, Thanks, I just checked and do not see any sign of your email. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe check Special:ChangeEmail to see if your email is correct, I would recommend reentering it to make sure it's in the system correctly. – BrandonXLF (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

BrandonXLF, I tried to reset my email address but it wouldn't let me insisting that I use a different address which I take as confirmation that I have the correct address entered. I did try turning off the option to receive emails, saved, then turned it back on. I tried sending myself an email, and I think it worked, but I'm not sure that is a perfect test. Could I ask you to try one?

When I was looking at my preferences, I see a new option "allow emails from brand-new users" I should have paid closer attention, but when I was making the other change I have a vague recollection that the box was checked but in a different shade. I wonder if that's a new added option and created a problem? When I undid the first option, and then reset, I checked the second option. It's possible this cleared things up. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The "Allow emails from brand-new users" option was added in January 2018, as part of MediaWiki 1.31 wmf.15, see phab:T138165. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Mangled archives

I probably should know more about how the archiving process works but someone set up my talk page archives for me a long long time ago and they worked so I never found the need to look into it. That's my excuse for not being able to handle this myself.

I'm dealing with a OTRS inquiry regarding Flavio Briatore. In the course of the response I made mention of the talk page, so I thought I'd check it out to see how active it has been.

I was initially surprised to see only four entries, none of which were dated. I am aware that automatic dating of talk pages is more recent than some of these entries. I knew that there had been some issues in 2013 so I was surprised not to see anything on the talk page.

I looked further and found Talk:Flavio_Briatore/Archive_1, which does contain some of the issues I expected to see. However, I thought it was standard practice to have a link on the talk page itself pointing to archives and I do not see one. I thought it was convention that archiving would leave the most recent entries on the talk page. Although the most recent entries date back to 2017 they are more recent than some of the threads left on the page. My guess is that the bot didn't know how to handle the undated entries and chose to leave those four.

What's the best way of fixing this? I presume that the undated entries should be in the archives, the talk page should have a link to the archives, and the last few entries on the talk page should be on the talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I added {{unsigned}} to the undated discussions and manually archived them. I also pulled the 4 most recent discussions from the archive as the bot is instructed to leave at least 4 discussions. I also added {{archive banner}} to automatically create links to the archives. – BrandonXLF (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

BrandonXLF, Thank you very much. I think I could have done some of that but I didn't know about the archive banner template so thanks again for helping clean this up. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Collapse

I want to copy the vastly simplified version of Template:Collapse at User:Launchballer/sandbox to http://wiki.apterous.org, but it isn't collapsing when I copy it over. The documentation suggests the template depends upon having rules for the three classes (collapsible, uncollapsed, and collapsed) in the appropriate CSS files, and some related JavaScript installed - where would I check?--Launchballer 16:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Launchballer, the wiki is running version 1.16 and version 1.18 is required for collapsible elements to be included in core MediaWiki. I modified mw:MediaWiki:Gadget-collapsibleTables.js so it should work with your wiki.

common.js (modified):

window.addEventListener('load', function() {
	var autoCollapse = 2; // Index of first table to autoCollapse
	var collapseCaption = 'hide'; // Caption to collapse the table
	var expandCaption = 'show'; // Caption to expand the element

	var tableIndex = 0;
	var content = document.getElementById('content');

	function collapseTable( rows, button, buttonLink ) {
		var collapsed = button.classList.contains('mw-collapsible-toggle-collapsed');

		button.classList.remove('mw-collapsible-toggle-' + (collapsed ? 'collapsed' : 'expanded'));
		button.classList.add('mw-collapsible-toggle-' + (collapsed ? 'expanded' : 'collapsed'));
		buttonLink.innerText = collapsed ? collapseCaption : expandCaption;

		for ( var i = 1; i < rows.length; i++ ) rows[i].style.display = collapsed ? rows[0].style.display : 'none';
	}

	function createCollapsibleTable ( table ) {
		if ( !table.classList.contains( 'mw-collapsible' ) ) return;

		var headerRow = table.getElementsByTagName( 'tr' )[0];
		var header = table.getElementsByTagName( 'th' )[0];

		if ( !header || !headerRow ) return;

		table.setAttribute( 'id', 'collapsibleTable' + tableIndex );

		var button = document.createElement( 'span' );
		button.className = 'mw-collapsible-toggle mw-collapsible-toggle-default mw-collapsible-toggle-expanded';

		var buttonLink = document.createElement( 'a' );
		buttonLink.style.color = header.style.color;
		buttonLink.setAttribute( 'id', 'collapseButton' + tableIndex );
		buttonLink.className = 'mw-collapsible-text';
		buttonLink.setAttribute( 'href', '#' );
		buttonLink.addEventListener( 'click', function (e) {
			e.preventDefault();
			collapseTable( table.rows, button, buttonLink );
		} );
		buttonLink.innerText = collapseCaption;
		button.appendChild( buttonLink );

		header.insertBefore( button, header.firstChild );
		tableIndex++;

		if (
			table.classList.contains( 'mw-collapsed' ) ||
			tableIndex >= autoCollapse && table.classList.contains( 'autocollapse' )
		) collapseTable( table.rows, button, buttonLink );
	}

	for ( var tables = content.getElementsByTagName( 'table' ), i = 0; i < tables.length; i++) createCollapsibleTable( tables[i] );
});

common.css:

 
.mw-collapsible-toggle-default:before {
	content: '[';
}

.mw-collapsible-toggle-default:after {
	content: ']';
}

.mw-collapsible-toggle {
	float: right;
	margin-left: 0.3em;
}

– BrandonXLF (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I've copied those two, but they don't seem to be working. Have I made a mistake?--Launchballer 18:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Launchballer, copy it to http://wiki.apterous.org/MediaWiki:Common.js and http://wiki.apterous.org/MediaWiki:Common.css. – BrandonXLF (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Still not seeing it. Do I need to delete them from the pages I initially added them to?--Launchballer 19:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Launchballer, the code is loading sooner than I thought it would, the above modified JavaScript should work.– BrandonXLF (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Works a treat, thank you.--Launchballer 21:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Good Article nominations by Wikipedians

We have WP:WBFAN and WP:WBFLN, can someone work out how to give us WP:WBGAN? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably best to ask User:Rick Block since he is running Rick Bot, which updates both of those lists. – BrandonXLF (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Rosetta Stone: Wikidata entry prevents use

"Rosetta Stone" has a problematic entry at field "Described at URL". The link works technically but the contributor used a link shortener, which is (now) blocked by scripts on Wikidata and Wikimedia.

When I try to use it for file description on Wikimedia Commons (Template:Artwork), Wikimedia says "The following text is what triggered our spam filter: skfb.ly." The normal user interface of Wikidata blocks editing or removing of the problematic link entry for the same reason. Wikidata says (roughly): "Cannot remove this link because it's spam." ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I replaced it and didn't get that message, and I don't believe I have any special permissions on Wikidata. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why it didn't let you replace it. There are only seven other uses of that site on Wikidata, so I'm going to just fix them manually. --Yair rand (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Please always give the actual error message so helpers can search for it. Maybe there is a problem somewhere but it's hard to investigate an unreproducible error with an unknown error message. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Resetting password problem

A long-time editor user:Hsan22 is having difficulty logging in. They requested a password reset, but do not see the email with the reset information. I have already suggested checking spam folders, and that did not help. my experience with such requests is that it is often the case that the user has failed to associate an email address with a username. I usually open up Special:EmailUser and attempt to send a test email. that typically achieves two purposes, first confirming that they do have email established, and second, helps identify the address. In this particular case, entering the username generates the message:

This user has chosen not to receive email from other users.

I believe that message confirms that they have established email, but because they've chosen not to receive email from others, I cannot use that to help them confirm which email address is associated with the account.

They have successfully changed their password in the past. Any suggestions on how we can help this user recover access to their account?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick your assumption is correct. I'd suggest opening a new private task in phabricator. I'm not sure how much information can be disclosed within the privacy policies, the user might have to offer up some list of email addresses he was expecting. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The account is old but only has 434 Wikimedia edits and no special rights. Will the developers really consider a request? Wikipedia:Help desk gets many posts from users who forgot their password and don't have email enabled or lost access to the email account. We usually just tell them to create a new account. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

wikitech:Password_reset has some vague information, but I don't think there is a very strong global policy documented on this? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

List of all Wikimedia sister projects

I'd like to generate a list of all Wikimedia sister projects automatically. It would comprise these sites:

• Wikipedia (310)
• Wiktionary (175)
• Wikibooks (120)
• Wikiquote (89)
• Wikisource (70)
• Wikinews (34)
• Wikivoyage (21)
• Wikiversity (17)

For example my list would look like this:

• en.wikipedia.org
• en.wikibooks.org
• etc..

836 entries/lines (as of today). Is there a MediaWiki API entry point? Web scraping the above lists on Meta is less than ideal and probably not authoritative. -- GreenC 15:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@GreenC: Special:SiteMatrix and it's API should do the trick. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 15:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! -- GreenC 15:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Gauging interest for tool idea

Hi. I've been thinking about creating a tool that would notify a requester (possibly on-wiki, possibly off-wiki) if a given account starts editing. I think it would be useful for me when I create an account through WP:ACC for someone, but think they might have promotional edits, so I can keep an eye on them. I could see a number of other possible uses for it as well (e.g. keeping an eye on suspected socks, knowing when to report someone to WP:UAA, etc.).

Of course, to prevent abuse (e.g. wikistalking/harassment), I'd limit it to trusted users. I'm thinking functionaries, ACC members, and OTRS members, plus perhaps a whitelist of other trusted editors, but am open to ideas.

Would anyone here be interested in such a tool? Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Be cognizant of previous discussion related to the exact wishlist item. --Izno (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Received a notification although editor doesn't mention me

When I clicked on "view changes" I got this.[9] I've talked to Serols on MOTORUP's talk page some time ago, but other than that I don't think I've even been involved with this editor, so it's unlikely they'd ping me anyway. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That edit transcluded all of User talk:Serols (which contains a link to your user page) instead of linking it. —Cryptic 17:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Lost WikiData link in the Tools section

Anyone else lost the wikidata link in the tools section? Has it been moved? I use Monobook, and on articles I only see the following list under Tools. Was working normally for me yesterday, and still appears when I switch to Vector.

*     What links here
*     Related changes
*     RTRC
*     Special pages
*     Permanent link
*     Page information
*     Cite this page
*     Add to the New Pages Feed
*     Expand citations
*     DYK check

Did someone change something? The-Pope (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It should still be in the same place. You may have a conflicting user script or something. Does it appear when you use safe mode (append ?safemode=1 to any page of interest)? --Izno (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Safe mode didn't make it show. It is still there in all the other skins, I didn't load or change anything, someone must have done something to the monobook skin to break the wikidata link from showing. The-Pope (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I have reported the sidebar changes at phab:T254546 and phab:T254550. Nirmos (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)