User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)

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

Old discussions: June 2013 to May 2014, June 2014 to May 2015, June 2015 to May 2016, June 2016 to May 2017

Citation tool in wikitext editor?[edit]

Screen shot of English Wikipedia visual editor interface.png

Hi What! I've just been given access to paywalled journal articles, thanks to the people at Wiki Ed Foundation and the University of New Hampshire, so I'm resurrecting the review of Parkinson's disease - basically, integrating the reviewers' suggestions along with appropriate supporting sources. It's been a while since I've done any serious editing and I'm very pleased to see this citation tool now embedded in the visual editor. Do you know if it's possible to use the citation tool in the wikitext editor? A JS fix or something? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anthonyhcole, it's great to see your name again.
If memory serves, User:Salix alba had a script to do just that, but I'm not sure what the current maintenance status of that script is. Otherwise, you could enable the beta feature for VisualEditor's new built-in wikitext mode, which would give you the citoid service for creating new citations (but not for changing existing ones). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do the latter (enable the beta feature for VisualEditor's new built-in wikitext mode), since I'm mostly adding new references. How do I do that? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and find the item for "New wikitext mode". It'll probably take just a bit longer to load the page – about four or five seconds in Safari on my Mac just now, but YMMV – but citoid's probably worth it. Note that paste behavior is a little different: if you paste in something with formatted text, it tries to figure out whether you wanted the formatting to be converted to wikitext. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
If you are interested in my script its is at User:Salix alba/Citoid. It gives a side bar menu item which pops up a box where you can input a url and get a generated citation out. It is currently working, but is dependant on the citoid api which occasionally changes. I try to fix it a soon as I know of problems. --Salix alba (talk): 05:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both, What and Salix alba. I'll play with both options but I've just realised how much faster VE is these days, so will probably do everything in VE from now on.

Turn off counter in edit window?[edit]

You are involved in this, this per this? How do we turn off the counter in the edit window? It is a bug not a feature - text is obscured as I reach the right side of the window. Fine to make this an option but this should not be the default. How do we make that happen? Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, there is quite a bit of discussion on WP:VPT that you may wish to review. --Izno (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I commented over there before coming here. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog,
That change is on my list. Even if it weren't, you can always ask me, and I'll try to figure out who can help.
They've got a bug in the edit-counter. Please take a look at phab:T169982. If it looks like your problem, then a fix is on the way (maybe one week from now, given the way the deployment schedules work?). In the meantime, when you can't see what you're typing, try the "up" arrow key followed by the "down" arrow key. For me, that's the fastest way to get the edit summary box to properly reset the location of the cursor. If you have a Windows keyboard, then the "End" key might have the same desirable effect. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Will you please tell me where this idea about a counter was discussed before this was launched? Jytdog (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: It was requested in March 2012 and implemented in VisualEditor since at least August 2012. phab:search/query/3gEB6yNOumYU/#R has some other related tasks. --Izno (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
So the decision to implement this in the Wikitext editor was that short phab thread phab:T36984? Is that correct? Jytdog (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
What to implement in the software is ultimately the devs' decision. Their decisions tend to get made through multiple channels (most commonly, Phab tasks for recording facts/technical details, and IRC and e-mail lists for discussions). But if you want to think about that Phab task as the central point, then you could equally well frame it as "The decision to implement this was because an admin from the English Wikipedia requested it, so the devs just did what the editors asked for". You could also say "This idea was a widely used, volunteer-created gadget at some wikis, which has now been merged into MediaWiki core". This isn't something that the devs dreamed up some day; it's an idea that came from the communities, for the purpose of solving daily problems facing experienced editors.
Having said that, I freely grant that the feature isn't as useful for editors like you and me, since you and I are mostly monolingual English people, and the unaccented "English" alphabet happens to be stored as one byte per character. Other characters require four bytes to store, so a short edit summary in some languages can exceed the space in the database for edit summaries.
The devs have promised to fix the scrolling annoyance. Once that's done, I expect that the main value for people like you and I will be making it slightly more obvious to new editors that they really can type a long explanation in the edit summary, and possibly reminding the rest of us why there's almost no room to add information to the default line when we undo an edit by an IPv6 editor. If it takes very long to fix it, then they might temporarily hide it (which might please a few people here, but which is guaranteed to displease some editors at some other wikis). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Contacting the WMF Legal department[edit]

I am contacting you because you are listed as a Community Liaison.

I am putting together a proposal at User:Guy Macon/Proposals/CAPTCHA (part of a series of proposals at User:Guy Macon/Proposals).

In my opinion, the next logical step is to inform someone at the WMF legal department. My problem is that there does not appear to be any noticeboard associated with the WMF legal department and every member of the WMF legal department appears to have a user talk page that cannot be edited.

I am unwilling to use email or post to a mailing list because I want everything involved with my proposals to be open and accessible through the history of the page where the discussion occurred. Can you suggest a way that I can contact legal regarding this matter? -Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Updated thoughts on VisualEditor[edit]

You had asked me to reconsider my original stance on VisualEditor. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner; my spouse developed Stevens–Johnson syndrome (but eventually made a full recovery) and I fell off the face of Wikipedia.

Anyway, since coming back I have been using VisualEditor much of the time.

I still worry about its making subtler vandalism less likely to be noticed in a timely manner, though I would expect there are some statistics available about that by now. I also still think that "Edit | Edit source" is confusing and that those options would be better represented as "Edit (VisualEditor) | Edit (wikitext)" or similar. It's hard enough getting new editors to understand WP's sourcing requirements without the wikitext editing option looking like it has something to do with that.

I have also noticed, since I'm now using the VisualEditor some of the time, that some things can't presently be done with it, such as fixing a broken citation tag (VE just sticks nowiki tags around the broken tag if you try fixing it with VE, compounding the problem — example diff), and specifying a ref name for a reference to be reused; the latter isn't much of an issue in shorter articles, but in a longer one (e.g. Howard Sims) the simple numbered ref names VE implements would make editing the article difficult for someone who wanted to edit in wikitext mode.

On the other hand, I like the automatic web citation option in VE, even though I often have to go in and edit the reference after adding it to correct the author (first/last), source date, website and/or work fields.

So I guess I'm coming around, but I'd like to hear your response to the concerns I still have. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 03:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Do we know what percentage of editors use VisualEditor?
The basic problem is that the developers, despite giving lip service to Agile Development, never created a set of requirements and never engaged with the customers who were to use the system. If they had, obvious problems like using "edit source" as a label in a context where "source" has a completely different meaning would have been identified and fixed.
I say "don't settle". Either the WMF development team publishes a full set of requirements or we keep rejecting the low-quality software they keep throwing over the wall. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Guy, when I read Agile software development, I see it say things like "requirements and solutions evolve through the collaborative effort" and "Requirements cannot be fully collected at the beginning of the software development cycle". Doesn't that sound like Agile is the opposite of creating "a full set of requirements"?
As for use, I believe that, as of a couple of months ago, about 30% of all editors use VisualEditor for some edits. This number varies significantly across wikis (e.g., much less at Wikidata and Wikisource) and language (e.g., higher at Portuguese and Catalan Wikipedias). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Agile means not creating a full set of requirements before you start, as was used in the Waterfall model. It does not mean never interacting with the stakeholders at all, never publishing any requirements no matter how far along the project is, and doing whatever the hell you want to do, throwing it over the wall, and then using superprotect when the surprised users reject it. Here are a couple of reasonably good pages about how agile requirements are supposed to work:
If the WMF did what is sescribed in the above pages, I would be happy. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, if "never interacting with the stakeholders at all" had any basis in reality, then I'd be concerned, too. Given that the WMF hired four new staff members in 2013 to do nothing except interact with said stakeholders for VisualEditor, and re-assigned several others to that task, and given that there are dozens of pages on multiple wikis that document that interaction (not to mention hundreds of announcements just on this wiki to request that interaction), and given that the WMF performed in-person user testing with experienced editors at Wikimania, and given the the WMF held IRC meetings to discuss it for months and is still holding open bug triage meetings that anyone can join, and given that it did many other things to promote and receive interaction with editors, I doubt that any serious case could be made for a claim that the WMF "never interact[s] with the stakeholders at all" over VisualEditor.
If you are thinking primarily of Media Viewer, then you might be unaware that the WMF not only discussed it repeatedly on multiple wikis, but also flew in editors from multiple countries to spend a couple of days looking at options and telling the product manager what they wanted changed. It's true that, in hindsight, some people think that the early feedback was a source of problems (e.g., the volunteers in those meetings generally wanted extra features added, and they got what they asked for), but I don't think that anyone could honestly call holding face-to-face discussions between stakeholders and the product manager "never interacting with the stakeholders at all". Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
All that work must have resulted in a finished set of requirements by now. Got a link? Maybe an unfinished set of requirements that the community can comment on? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Welcome back, GrammarFascist! I'm so glad to hear that your spouse has made a full recovery. SJS is a horrible disease.
I really appreciate you getting back to me. Here are my first thoughts:
  • VisualEditor can't make vandalism less likely to be noticed: The diffs are the same, and the RecentChanges patrollers are still using the old-fashioned diffs (although an additional review mode is coming that will be particularly useful for certain edits – compare this traditional diff against the new mode). As for the worry that if it's "too" easy to edit, then vandals will edit more often, that seems to be unfounded. I believe that the most recent work on that was about two years ago now (when they were still having significant problems with excessive nowiki tags), and it found no difference in the reversion rates between new editors using VisualEditor and new editors who weren't. This indicates that new editors are no more likely to vandalize (or make otherwise unwanted edits) with VisualEditor than without it.
  • You're right that some kinds of broken wikitext can't be fixed in the visual mode. You can switch to a wikitext editor to do that (right side of the toolbar, look for the pencil icon; there's a very similar icon to switch back). In 2013, we could specify custom ref names, but that feature was removed (I don't know why). Since you've reminded me of it, I think I'll go ask about it again. It's something I'd like to see, even if most people don't use it. The team has also talked about making up a ref name based on the automatic citoid output for the refs (maybe pulling the first word from whatever the first two bits of data are in the citation template – you might get "Smith Bob", which is okay, but you might also get " 18" – but still, I think it'd be better than ":0", which is what it uses now).
  • "Edit source" has been translated as "Edit wikitext" at some (non-English) wikis. I don't think that is necessarily any clearer to new editors (who don't know what "wikitext" is), but I've nothing against it. User testing (in English) has not indicated that the labels are a significant source of confusion for brand-new editors. This might be due to new editors not really knowing about the sourcing policies (or that the wiki jargon calls them "sources" instead of using more familiar, less academic terms such as "books" or "articles"), or it might be due to new editors understanding that the word source in English means many different things, so they try out both editing environments and figure out which one they prefer. Upon your first edit (try it in an incognito/private window), you get a dialog box that offers the opportunity to switch, which has the effect of reminding people that other options exist.
Also: Have you tried out table editing yet? A few experienced editors have told me that it's the only thing that they always switch to the visual mode for. You can play in my sandbox if you want – it has almost every kind of markup, including tables, lists, and music, and you can mess around in it without worrying about messing up a real article. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
A bit of background: I have managed several successful software projects that used Agile methodology at Mattel, Parker Hannifin, Boeing, and as a contractor for the US Navy and US Air Force. So I am not speaking from total ignorance.
In this context (adding a major new feature to an existing system) one of the first things that agile methodology is supposed to have happen is that someone has an idea about how to invoke the new feature and presents that invocation method in a form that everyone can read and comment on. In this case, I would expect something along the lines of
"The visual editor will be invoked by selecting one of two tabs on the edit page. These tabs will be labled "Edit" and "Edit source" on the English Wikipedia, with translations TBD."
or perhaps
"The visual editor will be invoked by a checkbox on the preference page. The checkbox will be labeled "Turn on VisualEditor" on the English Wikipedia, with translations TBD."
I would expect this to be published somewhere where the community could comment, and finally I would expect that a decision would be made and the method of invocation would be put into the list of requirements. Of course this particular requirement may change based upon something that happens later, but the key is to have a place that we can point to and say "this was discussed and decided. Here is where that happened".
Repeat the process as more things are decided, and eventually you have a set of requirements. Again agile does not mean no requirements. Agile is (among other things) a better way of arriving at the requirements.
So, where was the method of invocation publicly discussed? Where was it decided? And where is the single place where this and all similar decisions were recorded? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I hope that you don't seriously expect all Agile-based dev teams to follow DoDAF or any similarly bureaucratic process. The US Department of Defense may demand a single, formal, centralized, detailed list of all requirements, but Agile does not inherently have any such rule.
If you want to know where the current (i.e., not original) design of the edit button is documented and discussed, then you are looking for mw:VisualEditor/Single edit tab. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Updated thoughts on VisualEditor, take 2[edit]

(Guy Macon, since you aren't addressing me at all, but merely using the section heading I created to voice your own concerns with VE, would you please either confine your remarks to the above section or — preferably — create your own section heading under which to air your concerns? I respect your right to have a dialogue with Whatamidoing, but having your conversation with her interspersed with mine is making it difficult for me to follow my own dialogue with her. Thanks in advance.)


  • I'll take you at your word that the WMF "found no difference in the reversion rates between new editors using VisualEditor and new editors who weren't", though I do note that really clever vandals would have gone unnoticed and thus unreverted.
  • I would very much like to see either the ability to set custom ref names in VE, a contextual name automatically generated (even if imperfect, this would as you say be better than ":0"), or both.
  • I seem to remember encountering newer users at the Teahouse who thought "Edit source" was for doing references, though that would have been a couple of years ago.
  • Yes, actually, I have tried out table editing, though only to correct formatting errors introduced by an other editor or editors (diff). I found it mostly user-friendly and intuitive, though the preview made it look like there was still a missing vertical line on one cell, hence my edit summary. I'm sure I will find occasion to use VE to edit tables more in the future.
  • Thanks again for soliciting my opinion. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 23:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I have the impression that most vandals aren't very clever, but since this test was announced in advance, I'm pretty sure that it's an accurate result. There were several editors who seemed to be carefully watching edits that week to make sure that things were properly reviewed.
Thanks for the tip about confusion at the Teahouse. I couldn't find an example of that in a quick search, but with 650+ archives, that doesn't really mean very much. ;-) I trust your memory.
There was a plan to have a single edit tab, but it's been stalled for a long while, and I don't know what will happen to it. It's running here and at a few dozen wikis, but we're not switching existing two-tab wikis to "SET" any longer. In the current design of SET, you get one button for editing, and it does whatever you like best (you choose before your first edit or change your personal 'default' in Special:Preferences). But I believe that it still uses "Edit source" when using the older wikitext editors on the editing page for an article (but not when reading an article or on talk pages), so it wouldn't solve your problem, and switching the original two-tab design to this single tab design created confusion among editors, who thought that they had "lost" the other editing environment (since only one button was visible). It needs more work. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
It's true that most vandals aren't very clever — fortunately for us!
I have no doubt that switching everyone from two-tab to single-tab would cause confusion and consternation; the font for wikitext editing was recently switched to monospace, overriding whatever people had set as their personal default, and I know some veteran editors had a hard time figuring out what had happened and how to fix it. So I don't think switching from two-tab to single-tab is a good idea, unless you want to have lots of frustrated, angry editors. Maybe if there was a global message accompanying the change so that people would know what to do to get their old settings back. Would the SET design as it stands still allow for switching editing mode while editing? I have found that option quite useful.
Relatedly, are there plans to enable VE on talk pages? I know it's an unfriendly learning curve for new editors when we're throwing "and you have to use a colon when responding, except when you use 2, 3, 4 or more" at them at the same time as we're throwing links to multiple policy and/or guideline pages at them; being able to just say "and please indent your reply" would help make helping new editors somewhat less overwhelming for them. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 13:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a global message for the one-or-two tabs thing (screenshot at File:VisualEditor single edit tab preference dialog.png), and it didn't help. Or perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that it didn't help enough, because a one-time message is easily forgotten – even assuming that you understood what it was asking, and I'm not entirely that every single editor would have understood.
Yes, you can still switch back and forth under SET. The English Wikipedia is one of the handful of wikis that is running SET (albeit mostly for new accounts), so what we've got here is the SET design. It's possible that some day, switching back and forth will require using VisualEditor's wikitext mode (currently offered as a Beta Feature) – it seems to depend some upon the team's understanding of the user experience research, and some upon technical issues (such as performance). I suppose I'm pointing this possibility out to be clear that I'm not promising that this will always be the case for all users forever (nor am I promising that it won't be), but at this point in time, switching is possible between all WMF supported browsers in spaces where visual editing is supported.
(Side note: Given the number of people who complained when the second editing tabs was introduced in 2013, you might think that experienced editors would be pleased to see the system go back to just one. But with few exceptions, that was not the case. I think that many experienced editors are similar to me, in that I pick and choose the editing environment based on what I'm going to do. Adding a missing /ref tag? Wikitext. Major copyediting effort? Visual mode. And I want to go straight to the better editing environment for that particular task, and not open "my usual" and then have to switch to the one for the task at hand.)
There are no plans to enable visual editing on talk pages. Leaving aside general concepts such as whether the user experience is tuned to the kind of things that happen on talk pages (answer: it isn't, but will editors care?) and how it would cope with broken or partial wikitext syntax such as one finds at VPT (answer: poorly), and focusing purely on the immediately practical issues, it's not really a good choice right now. The visual mode has no idea how to "indent" (it still doesn't support definition lists, which is what that : markup is supposed to be used for), so it would just make a mess of talk pages in its current state.
I once suggested trying VisualEditor's new wikitext mode to a new editor, and s/he seemed to prefer that. The wikitext mode is available on talk pages. It shows plain old wikitext, but it's the same toolbar as the visual mode, and that seemed to be helpful.
BTW, the font change in the older wikitext editors only affected Apple users who hadn't changed their personal default font. I've seen few comments about the change, and the thanks and confusion seem to be equally balanced. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Re: the change that only affected Apple users, see this exchange at the Teahouse; I don't have time to address the rest right now. (I always figure for every one person asking a question at the Teahouse, there are probably dozens who don't know / didn't think to ask there.) —GrammarFascist contribstalk 20:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that link.
I think your assumption is reasonable. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

VisualEditor available to IP users?[edit]

Hello again. "Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/header" says, "VisualEditor is not currently available to unregistered users here at the English Wikipedia, or to users of Internet Explorer 9 anywhere." However, while logged out, I was able to switch from source editor to VisualEditor. Can the "to unregistered users here at the English Wikipedia" be removed? --George Ho (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've updated the page. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings[edit]

The Great White North.jpg you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Severe disruption[edit]

I'm assuming the WMF and devs are aware of the severe disruption we've been undergoing for the past couple weeks which has necessitated multiple EC-protections of the ANI board? Admins and edit-filters can't seem to do anything. I know it's a longshot but can anything be done on the server side? --NeilN talk to me 04:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Originally posted in error at the technical Village Pump - copying it here[edit]

NewYorkActuary, I'm interested in this. Feel free to undo a of my few edits in my sandbox and then leave a note on my talk page about what you did. Let's see if we can figure out how to reproduce this reliably. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF): Thanks for following up on this. I've made two edits to that page. The first was a simple "undo". The second was an "undo" combined with some editing, both done within the basic (standard?) edit window and both done before clicking "Save". Becuase I don't have the VisualEditor installed, I was unable to demonstrate what would happen if I clicked "Undo", but then switched to VisualEditor before saving. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I just went back to your page to check that both of my edits did have "Tag: Undo" attached to them. But I also saw that you have VisualEditor installed. So how about undoing the most recent edit on one of my pages (this one), but switching to VisualEditor mid-process? We'll see if I get a notification of that edit. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I got two "undo" notifications, so it's "so far, so good". I'm off to revert you in /draft15 now, and I'll ping you when I'm done. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I found a different bug. Reverting you didn't actually revert you, although it carefully saved the edit summary. I'm going to go file that bug, and then I'll try again. Could you please let me know if you got the Echo notification about the (failed) reversion? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
With a little more testing, I think that the process for triggering the missing-notification bug and still undoing the edit needs to look like this:
  1. Undo an edit (and end up in one of the older wikitext editors – see mw:Editor if you want to know which one you're using).
  2. Make any change in the wikitext editor.
  3. Switch to the visual editor (optionally, make more changes).
  4. Save the page.
If you skip step #2 (as I did), then it doesn't actually revert the change. I don't think that skipping step #2 should actually have any effect on whether you get notified, however; I'm thinking that it will just fail to revert and fail to notify you (which is not necessarily a bad end result for the reverted person, who will not be notified of a non-event, but it is unexpected and broken from the POV of the editor who is trying to revert someone else's changes). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I didn't get that notification. The only one I got was for your mention of me in your 22:50 posting here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
One of the devs has already commented on the task, so it feels like we're making progress today (although I don't think he'll be the one who gets assigned to fix it). Thanks for posting your note at VPT when you noticed something odd. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you![edit]

Re That jumping zombie cursor in VE has been the bane of my life. I finally found the Phabricator page about it and was glad to discover that it had an easy fix (turning off the Translate gadget). Thank you for your patience and persistence in running this bug to ground. I'm sure it wasn't easy to reproduce.

You're welcome, Gould363. I'm glad that you found it. It's always satisfying to figure out a crazy problem like that one. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Pending Changes process - still using "Save changes" not "Publish changes"[edit]

Hi. As you know, in recent weeks I have been working through to remove all mention of "Save changes" in text and images across our help pages following the wiki-wide decision by WMF to alter the big blue button title from Save changes to Publish changes. I'm indebted to MB and Noyster for drawing my attention to a small issue remaining within the Pending Changes process which needs addressing. In essence, at one stage in the process, the Publish changes button suddenly reverts to its old name of Save changes. For any admin, or person with Pending changes permissions, here's how to reveal the issue:

  1. At Special:PendingChanges select an article to review;
  2. Rather than normally just hitting either 'Accept revision' or 'Reject changes', choose instead to 'Edit source' to insert an edit of your own. (At this point the blue button at the bottom of the page is labelled 'Submit changes', which is fair enough.
  3. Here at the bottom, please now check the tiny tickbox to "Accept this version" (it's adjacent to the 'This is a minor edit' and 'Watch this page' tickboxes)
  4. On checking the tickbox, the "Submit" button changes its name to "Save Changes" when it should really now be "Publish changes", as used everywhere else.

I realise experienced editors will have no difficulty with this, and maybe even feel a warm glow that in one small corner of common sense still prevails. LOL! However, this doesn't accord with practice elsewhere so does need to be corrected. Rather than report it the Pending Changes talk page, I thought you might be in a better position to identify who should address this matter directly. I'm happy to re-post there if you prefer. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Oooh, that's a fun little bug. Thank you for sharing it with me.
PendingChanges doesn't use the same "label". Normal editors see MediaWiki:Publishpage; under PendingChanges, I believe that they see MediaWiki:Revreview-submitedit (that's what you see pre-ticking the tiny tickbox; it just happens to be the same wording in both labels). When you tick the box, it switches to MediaWiki:savearticle. I'll have to talk to folks about whether this is a pleasant case of common sense prevailing (i.e., because the original editor is actually the publisher of the content, especially if you didn't change anything after opening it), or something that needs to be fixed (i.e., because you probably opened that page to change something, and I don't know if it's possible to detect whether or not you made changes of your own). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the text is in MediaWiki:Revreview-check-flag-p page. It currently says
Accept this version (includes $1 pending changes)
I can change it. But I'm not sure what to. If it no the right one you can find out which one it is by enabling a gadget in your preferences.--Salix alba (talk): 21:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
No, we're not talking about the "accept this version" text", but the wording that's actually displayed within the blue Submit/Publish button itself. (love the botanical username, by the way) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Salix alba. I don't think that you need to do anything in particular about this right now. I've filed the bug report, and the devs will be able to fix anything centrally (assuming that a fix is needed). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Still missing lower tools in my account[edit]

Hello again. I'm still missing the lower tools in my account, and you said it's OOUI-related or something like that at a Village Pump discussion. I'll upload a screenshot for specifics if you are still confused and wish me to do so. --George Ho (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Unforutnately, I don't know how to fix this for you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
No need. I realized that I must have disabled "mw:Extension:CharInsert" accidentally. Therefore, I re-enabled it. --George Ho (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

security emails and Phab[edit]

Thank you for your (archived) suggestion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 165#if login doubtful or fails, send email at that moment, not later. With that in mind, I've now proposed it. I assume you're free to comment. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)