Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive

Village Pump - Archive

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Post replies at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Note: Please add new material at the bottom of the page and remove any duplicate sections.

MediaWiki talk:Anonnotice#It needs to be moved up or over:

MediaWiki:Anonnotice is clashing with many of the top-right-corner icons for anons at the moment (see the thread linked in the section title for details). So it probably needs to be moved to the left. Per discussion in that thread, I'm taking the matter here for dicussion. --ais523 10:08, 26 February 2007 (U T C)

hello

i am wondering how to read articles on technical thing

thanks much i am pleased ur support

For technical information about Wikipedia and MediaWiki, Wikipedia:Technical FAQ and the MediaWiki website may be good starting points. --ais523 18:39, 19 March 2007 (U T C)

"Send new password" problems

Shocker: I'm sorry for editing this post, but there is a problem with the "Send new Password" function. I forgot my password, chose "Send new password", it said I'll get my password via email but I didn't. It's been 3 days now, I tried a couple of times to ask for a new password, but I don't get any email :\ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.18.88.109 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Corrected number of articles

Wikipedia:What is an article? states "The automatic definition used by the software at Special:Statistics is: any page that is in the article namespace, is not a redirect page and contains at least one wiki link. The statistics software currently has no method of detecting disambiguation pages..." I assume it uses the text #REDIRECT to discriminate redirect pages; is there not some simple way the software could be taught to recognise {{disambig}} or Category:Disambiguation? This seems like a very easy thing to fix, why isn't it already there? Although, it will suddenly and dramatically reduce the article count, which may be difficult to explain... — Jack · talk · 14:56, Monday, 2 April 2007

It's a problem of what's efficient, not what's possible. Redirects are actually stored differently from ordinary pages in the database, so that the software can tell them apart trivially; the software can recognize disambiguation pages using the list in MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage, but couldn't check every page in a resonably efficient manner. There has been a feature request (bugzilla:6754) for disambiguation pages to be more cheaply distinguishable from ordinary pages, but for the time being it would be too much load on the servers to remove dab pages from the article count. --ais523 15:03, 2 April 2007 (U T C)

how do you delete and article you made?

meanmachine4242

If nobody else has edited the article since, log in to the account with which you made the article and place {{db-author}} on it, to request an admin to delete it. Otherwise, use WP:PROD or WP:AFD as usual. --ais523 11:03, 26 April 2007 (U T C)

making Wikipedia more user-friendly

Anyone know whether the wikipedia code can be changed so that (1) when you open the homepage, the blinking cursor is automatically located in the "search" box (since 99.9% of the users will have to take their hands off the keyboard, put their hand on the mouse, move the cursor to the box, click the box, and then put their hands back on the keyboard), (2) you can use keystrokes to find text within a page (i.e., use Alt+Edit+Find; ctrl-Find works, but the Alt pull-down menus don't work)?

The two are connected, in fact. In the browser you're using, Alt-menus aren't working because your browser's using Alt-key combinations for keyboard shortcuts; see Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts. So for instance, you can jump to the 'search' box by pressing Alt-Fm without having to take your hands off the keyboard. The reason the cursor isn't in the search box by default is that users expect the 'up' and 'down' keys to scroll a page, and they won't when the cursor's in the search box. You could use the multilanguage search page, http://www.wikipedia.org, instead, where the cursor is in the search box by default, as there's no info to scroll through. Hope that helps! --ais523 17:48, 2 May 2007 (U T C)

Incorrect TOC formatting

PLEASE HELP ME!

I tried to login in to my original Wikipedia account but it said I had the wrong password. I only use three different passwords for my various accounts on the net and was wondering who to talk to and how to resolve this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.174.224.55 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Internal Server Error

I get the following message when I try to move more than two pages in a row: "Internal Server Error: Sorry, the server has encountered an internal error. Please wait a moment and hit "refresh" to submit the request again." I have to wait few minutes in order to move the next page. It's been like this for few days. Does anybody know what's wrong? Jogers (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A move rate limit of 2 moves per minute for non-sysop or non-bot users was introduced by Tim Starling on May 15th "in response to vandalism on Wikiquote". 86.140.128.210 22:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes my work much harder. Is it going to be permanent? Jogers (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The limit was increased to 8 moves per minute on May 22nd, again, by Tim Starling. 164.11.204.56 11:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects in categories

I've recently seen redirect pages showing up in categories, being listed in italics. Could somebody please point out to me when this was implemented, and if there was any discussion about it? Thanks. >Radiant< 11:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was briefly mentioned right here (now in /Archive#Marking links to disambiguation pages). The change was in rev:22156, 10 days ago. --Derlay 11:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed them too - and like them! DuncanHill 11:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should discuss this some more. Me and a few others think this is a bad idea. Apart from a bit of meta-data, in general redirects shouldn't be categorized, certainly not in categories meant for articles. If the page redirected to is in the same category, that means the item is now listed twice, which is confusing. If the page redirected to is not in the same category, that means that the page you get to is not in the category you expect to be browsing, which again is confusing. >Radiant< 12:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I noticed are for several Disused railway stations, which used to have seperate articles, but have now been combined into one larger article. They now show as italicized links in the relevant category for rail transport or for stations, this is extremely helpful for someone looking for particular stations. See Category:Disused railway stations in Cornwall to see what I mean. DuncanHill 12:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly useful for some categories (DuncanHill has a good article-space example, and as a project-space example Category:Speedy deletion templates would be more useful IMO if the redirects into it were categorized in the same way). In other cases (e.g. categorising typos), it could be harmful, but there's nothing forcing cats to be put on such redirects. Leave the cats off if it's confusing, put them on if it's helpful. Surely this is a positive change if people are careful about how they categorize redirects? --ais523 13:03, 24 May 2007 (U T C)

I would suggest that cats are not intended as an exhaustive list of topics. This trick is probably useful in some cases, but it is certainly confusing in others. >Radiant< 13:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with that. I don't think it's a reason to disable this feature, though. --ais523 14:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  - You'll note that I asked for people to discuss it, not disable it :) >Radiant< 14:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OTOH, what is the earthly point of having categories at all if not to collect all articles (<> topics!) that fall into the category? Insofar as this feature helps to do that, I like it. --Tkynerd 15:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of implementation, this feature is innocuous. All it does is add a <span class="redirect-in-category">...</span> around redirects in a category. If there is a decision to remove the special styling, it's as simple as doing this in the site-wide CSS:

.redirect-in-category { font-style: inherit }

So there's no need to do anything with the feature itself. Mike Dillon 15:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's possible to do even more specific stuff, like disabling/enabling style on a per-category basis:

.page-Category_Speedy_deletion_templates .redirect-in-category a { color: red }

There would have to be some assessment of the relative cost/benefit of adding such styling site-wide, but I could see this being justified for some of the project-oriented categories. Mike Dillon 15:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While not all redirects should be categorized, if we're going to adopt a mergist philosophy that aggregates minor articles into lists and subject-area articles, we absolutely need to categorize those redirects in order to facilitate navigation through categories. Misspelling/variant spelling, and other housekeeping redirects should remain uncategorized. See also Wikipedia_talk:Redirects#Categories_on_redirects_needs_clarifying for recent discussion on the matter. -- nae'blis 15:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, although personally I see this as a good reason to avoid excessive merging in the first place. But then, that has been my stance for a long time. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent innovation and it removes a major problem that has always annoyed me. There are lots of things that don't have their own article that a reasonable person might expect to find in a given category. Hawkestone 20:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. I think it is an extremely good thing to be able to categorize redirects in cases where the redirect covers only a historical or minor aspect of the target article and it would be confusing to categorize the article with the same category. older ≠ wiser 12:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to add redirects to categories and their presence there is nothing new. Only the italic styling is new and it was added on-wiki at MediaWiki:Common.css (see MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Italicize redirects in category). Any discussion about whether or not the guidelines for having redirects in mixed categories should be changed belongs at Wikipedia talk:Redirect, not here. There is nothing technical about this discussion except how to change/disable the italics if that is what consensus determines. Mike Dillon 14:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exporting watchlist

Is it possible for me to export my watchlist from an old account of mine to this one?--Seraphiel 07:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well....anyone?--Seraphiel 10:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment, although it might become possible in the future. 164.11.204.56 11:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like the ability to periodically save and restore my watchlist. It's already filed in bugzilla: bug 7959. CMummert · talk 11:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for opening the feature request. This is a feature that should have been there since a long time ago itself. Hope it gets approved.--Seraphiel 12:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't open it. One way to bring attention to bugs that you are interested in is to "vote" for them in bugzilla. CMummert · talk 12:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Rugby league

I am trying to add some syntax to Template:WikiProject Rugby league.

I am trying to add a peer review section to the template.

I have done that and saved and all seemed well.

When I tried to test it out on Talk:Karmichael Hunt, nothing happened.

It should come up with something like "A request has been made for this to be perr reviewed.

But on Karmichael Hunt it hasn't come up. (I also tried it on Brisbane Broncos, but it didn't work)

The category's supposed to come up also don't come up. I think I've done something wrong.

"old-peer-review" doesn't come up either. SpecialWindler 10:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at it and I can't figure out what's wrong, although I haven,t actually tested whether the problem is that there is no option given for if {{peer review}} does not equal "yes".Circeus 20:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a problem. I played around with Special:ExpandTemplates and the parameters look fine. I also see the text you're looking for in the article history:

peer-review: [1]
old-peer-review: [2]

Perhaps the problem was related to caching or database synchronization (i.e. lag). Also, Talk:Brisbane Broncos is currently listed in Category:Old requests for Rugby league peer review. Mike Dillon 00:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that this is a couple days old... Mike Dillon 00:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lupin's anti vandal tool again...

Even though the Lupin's anti-vandal tool is working now, it dosen't catch as much vandalism as it used too (it used to catch 4x the vandalism it does today). The RSS still updates every 30 seconds, but it dosen't catch as much as vandalism as it used too. Is this a bug? Can anybody fix it?--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 03:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please see the relevant discussion here.

I am working on it, when it is done you have to click Shift-Reload to update. Cacycle 05:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should work now, please click Shift-Reload to update. Cacycle 08:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upload file wizard

I noticed the new "upload file wizard", similar to that of Commons. I just think this link belongs in the "toolbox" group, rather than the "interaction" group. —Anas ^talk? 12:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The toolbox cannot actually be added to from the MediaWiki user interface. It has to be done through MediaWiki extensions. Gutworth 13:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top 100

Is it possible that in the next month or so on the Top 100 most visited sites in Wikipedia to exclude the Main Page, as technically it is not an article? Simply south 14:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reason to move the Main Page into Portal space comes up... --ais523 14:21, 26 May 2007 (U T C)

Article redirecting to category

Among the articles in Category:Cinemas and movie theaters is List of cinemas, which is a redirect to the category. I've never seen something like this before, and I don't know what to do with it. What can properly be done — does this work well? It seems to be an odd kind of loop. Nyttend 15:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as being somewhat inadvisable. Taking the redirect to RfD would seem likely to find the best solution (which is probably just deleting the redirect). --ais523 16:03, 26 May 2007 (U T C)

I think the problem is that the redirect had #REDIRECT [[Category:Cinemas and movie theaters|*]] rather than #REDIRECT [[:Category:Cinemas and movie theaters|*]] with a colon. With the latter, the redirect does not appear in the category. Gimmetrow 16:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a coincidence. I just came here thinking of mentioning this issue. I recently made this very change to African-American actors which redirects to the category. I put in the colon to remove the categorization. After doing so, I started thinking about if this sort of redirect is a bad thing. It doesn't mess up any categories and it might be helpful. There is nothing that stops such a redirect from developing into an article or list. I couldn't think of a good reason to delete it. Is there a problem I am not considering? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a bad redirect to have (although having a bot fix the probably-numerous missing :'s is probably a good idea). Lists and categories are a related concept, and this is not the usual sort of 'cross-namespace' pollution I'm worried about. -- nae'blis 15:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref family template alternatives which would not assign the ID attribute

I brought this up here, and would like to see more comment before I jump in and create these alternative templates and update the documentation. Comments welcome -- this is probably a better place for the discussion than the template talk page. -- Boracay Bill 01:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea seems sound to me. It might be better to just add a parameter to {{ref}} that disables the ID, rather than making a second template that would get out of sync. CMummert · talk 02:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shortpages

Could Special:shortpages be modified to remove, or at least highlight, things such as redirects, disambiguation pages, and copyvio pages? — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 03:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the skin to create a banner

Hi, I am wondering if somebody could point me in the right direction to create some form of text, banner, or box near the top of my wiki page through my monobook.js file. I'm just looking for the code that could do what I need to do! I want to make a bit of text that changes to reflect the current UTC date and time. I know that I can use {{CURRENTTIME}} etc, but how can I make this appear near the top of the page. I am just sick of converting my local time to UTC when I want to compare with edits etc. Thanks, DanielBC [_talk^contrib_stats] 09:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a script that does this at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Time. Tra (Talk) 09:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Tra! I am also looking forward to implementing your watch other users contributions script! Coincidentally I have been looking for that exact script for several days! Thanks again, DanielBC [_talk^contrib_stats] 13:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further changing the display of redirects in category pages

For background, see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects and its talk page.

I'm afraid I don't have the revision number, but there was a fairly recent change that made redirects in categories display in italics (can anyone supply the revision number?). The italics mark-up is better than the previous mark-up where the redirect links displayed the same way as normal articles. However, the italics mark-up only marks the redirects out as different. It doesn't tell the reader why these links are in italics. Possibly some text could be added to the boilerplate category page explaining this, but I am wondering whether it would be possible to try something slightly more ambitious.

Would it be possible to have redirects display on category pages like this?

Name of redirect page

see name of destination page

Or to use a real example:

Paris Township, Kent County, Michigan

see Kentwood, Michigan

This is exactly how such "redirects" appear in paper indexes, so there is ample precedent for the usefulness of this kind of set-up. This would also solve the problem that sometimes when clicking on a redirect you are taken (via an anchored link) to a subsection of an article, and so are not given the helpful "redirected from" bit at the top. This solution would, at least for categories, change the message from "you have been redirected", to "you are about to be redirected", just changing the point at which the message is displayed to the reader. (For redirect links clicked on in article namespace, the "redirected from" bit at the top is still very useful, and anchored redirect links clicked on in article namespace will still be disorientating unless well-designed, but this would reduce the disorientation when clicking on redirects, both normal and anchored, in category namespace).

Another example is the Bi-musicality redirect, which currently appears in Category:Ethnomusicology. Currently, when you click on Bi-musicality in that category, you jump deep into an article, which is disorientating. This disorientation would be removed if the category entry displayed as:

Bi-musicality

see Mantle Hood#Bi-musicality

Or even bettter:

Bi-musicality

see Bi-musicality section of Mantle Hood

But that would require detection and parsing of the anchor (#) character and piping of the display, which might complicate things (or not, I really don't know). Another advantage of this is that it changes the URL displayed in the browser window from "Bi-musicality#Bimusicality" (if you click the first displayed link) to the more correct "Mantle Hood#Bi-musicality". Indeed, there is an argument that the actual redirect could be bypassed altogether, leading to:

Bi-musicality

see Mantle Hood#Bi-musicality

For some more examples, see Category:Messier objects, where the redirects are well-organised and so don't really need this extra level of explanation, but I think the advantages in cases where such explanation is needed outweighs considerations like this. Some other examples and possible displays:

Bibliography of J. R. R. Tolkien

see Bibliography section of J. R. R. Tolkien

Or even (delink first line, double link second line):

Bibliography of J. R. R. Tolkien

see Bibliography section of J. R. R. Tolkien

To sum up, even if the more nuanced displays described above are not possible (I prefer the final display format given above), the destination article is always in the first "#REDIRECT" part of the redirect page, so I hope a simple "display of the destination article for redirects, when redirects appear on a category page" (ie. when redirects are categorised), should be doable. Do people here think this is doable? If so, can anyone submit a bugzilla request on this? Carcharoth 10:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything is possible, but is it necessary? Most of us had no idea what a red link was at some point. If there are many redirects in a category, you could manually add a comment like "listings in italics are redirects", but I don't even think that is necessary. For the most part, people will click on redirects that are listed and end up at an article and not care that they clicked on a redirect. The downside of the formatting you propose is that it will clutter up category listings when there are numerous redirects. If there were an entire category of redirects it would be a mess. This kind of formatting is great for a book because you actually have to look elsewhere to find what you want. Since everything here is automated we don't actually have to "see" anything at all, you just click on the link and you get there. Telling people to see a different listing might be very confusing, especially in the cases when the alternate listings are not in the category (like the J. R. R. Tolkien example). -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see your point about more text cluttering up pages, but I do find the anchored redirects very confusing. At the least, couldn't the redirects display like they do in "what links here":

Name of redirect page (redirect page)

That at least would indicate that the italicised pages are redirects. Carcharoth 11:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having just created and populated Category:Burns, I'm having second thoughts about my proposal above. Any input on how well that category works (a mix of redirects and articles), plus whether the main proposal is useful, would be appreciated. Carcharoth 16:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rev:22156 --Splarka (rant) 07:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 229 seconds may not be shown in this list.

Is it possible that this new feature is actually the cause of all this lag? It seems the more stuff that gets crammed onto the special:contributions page, the more the servers lag--69.118.235.97 13:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What new feature? --brion 13:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the database reports how far behind its information is anyways. I would say that the lag is just more visible now. ^(H) 14:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check current database lag. (I've known it to go over 300 even without the new feature.) --ais523 14:35, 29 May 2007 (U T C)

Also have a look up here. Mfb52 07:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coord in Classic skin

There is a problem with the template "Coord" (and related templates) when viewed using the classic skin. I copy below discussion from Template talk:Coord. I cannot find a "Classic skin talk page", so I am posting this here on VPT. -- SGBailey 18:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This will need to be fixed at MediaWiki:Standard.css. I'm surpised it was added in the first place, since it is broken in Firefox/Mozilla as well. The declaration is pretty much the same for Standard and MediaWiki:Monobook.css, except that Standard has top: 7em and Monobook has top: 3.7em Since it looks like the space at the top of this skin can be variable, I don't know that there is any "top" value that will work across the board in Standard/Classic. It probably only works on pages with no interwiki links. Mike Dillon 18:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Languages and page position

Using Classic skin and Win XP with MSIE7, the coordinates are up near the top right of the page. Unfortunately, so is the list of interwiki language links. If the language list is more than one line long, then the coordinates get zapped by the ---- line or by the link text itself. Can the coordinates be placed level with the page title, but on the right and below the line? (If requested, I'll upload a picture of what I'm talking about.) -- SGBailey 19:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, this also applies to {Coor} -- SGBailey 19:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a typical example of the problem. The "Coord" appears to be in a fixed relationship to the search box in the top right. File:Coord clash.png -- SGBailey 08:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it isn't just coord which is affected, it might be better to bring this up on the talk page of the relevant skin. Andy Mabbett 09:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This change, to remove the FA star from the Classic skin, was at my request before I was an admin, with similar reasoning. Classic doesn't have a consistent 'top' for coords due to the way that interwikis are worked out, so the recent change to MediaWiki:Standard.css is inadvisable. --ais523 16:16, 28 May 2007 (U T C)

Lupin

The rollback and filter recent changes script does not appear to be working properly. Navou 02:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the script is not part of the MediaWiki software, you're unlikely to get answers here. --Deskana (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that may be the case, however, since a number of users use this script to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia proper, I think it may fit the element of exigent per the page header for this page. Navou 02:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki cue for deleted edits

Is there a way to change the interface, short of a software change by developers, to make it more explicit to users w/o the sysop bit when a page title has deleted edits? At this point I'm not talking about access to Special:Undelete, but something changes the page header to show the link for certain access levels, and I was wondering if an explicit link to the deletion log entry could be substituted in that space for normal/anonymous users. -- nae'blis 15:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way without either expensive (in the sense of causing too much server load) client-side scripting or a change in the software to give a link to the deletion log iff it has entries for non-admins. The change in the software would be the only practical way to implement this. If you want a link to the deletion log on every page, regardless of whether it's been deleted or not in the past, that's easy enough, but you don't seem to want that and I don't think it would be a good idea. --ais523 16:13, 28 May 2007 (U T C)

Interesting. I agree that's not useful, but I see that some other wikis have enabled deleted edits for all users, so maybe I'll look for that configuration option... -- nae'blis 17:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to modify $wgGroupPermissions in your LocalSettings.php. I assume that you mean for a private wiki; for Wikimedia wikis showing deleted edits to everyone is pretty much out of the question. Your original suggestion for the software change is probably not that hard to implement. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Upload file wizard'

Shouldn't that probably read ' File upload wizard ' ?--VectorPotential^Talk 18:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's some discussion at MediaWiki talk:Sidebar (and numerous other places, it seems). --- RockMFR 20:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

404 for Image:Map of Finnish Petsamo.png

I'm getting a 404 for Image:Map of Finnish Petsamo.png (the actual image, not the image description page). I tried reverting to an earlier version to see if that would fix it, but that causes an internal error because it can't find the image file. —Bkell (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fixed now. I did sort of a manual revert (to 20:41, July 19, 2005 . . Sonitus (Talk | contribs) . . 250×320 (12,563 bytes) (changed colour of towns so it doesn't seem as if the USSR annexed them in 1940 as well) ) by opening the old version (clicking on the date link), saving the file to my computer and then re-uploading it with the same name. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Coding Question

Does anybody know what part of the JavaScript makes WP:ARV (source) only compatible with FireFox? Is there a way around it? --əˈnon gahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

list of new pages

There is a template that can be placed on a user page which allows you to select a listing of newly created pages. This template can reach back to number 4000 and beyond. I can't remember it exactly. Does anyone know? Thanks JodyB_talk 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably {{Special:Newpages}}. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can put {{Special:Newpages/number}} to change the number of pages shown in that list. However, I've tried and it won't let you put in as many as 4000 but it works with something like {{Special:Newpages/100}} Tra (Talk) 23:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not is. There is another one which gives you an option to select the number you want It's something like newpageslist If I find it I'll post it back here. JodyB_talk 23:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. It's a template {{newpagelinks}} JodyB_talk 23:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]