Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Village pump (technical))
Jump to: navigation, search
  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   Miscellaneous  
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. Questions about MediaWiki in general should be posted at the MediaWiki support desk.

« Older discussions, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Sorting search results[edit]

Is there any way to sort search results by date the page was modified? --NeilN talk to me 14:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't think so. Using prefer-recent: is the only alternative. More: T40403, T64879 - NQ-Alt (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
"Adding in a feature to sort by date or alphabetically by title will, for the reasons explained above, result in degraded performance for the vast majority of users. It's for this reason that search engines like Google don't allow you to sort by date or alphabetically by title; it degrades the quality of the service. I'm WONTFIXing this bug accordingly, as I cannot justify adding features to CirrusSearch that degrade the experience for the vast majority of its users." Gotta love the arrogance of some of the development team, telling users "no, no, we think you won't understand what a 'sort by date' button really does." --NeilN talk to me 16:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: If you wish to constructively discuss this request, then please reach out to me privately, or discuss the request here, and I'd be more than happy to talk to you about it. If, on the other hand, you wish to continue in this unconstructive manner, attacking others rather than discussing the matter at hand, then I will not engage with you further. Thank you. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@Deskana: I see the discussion that took place in the phabricator report. Will repeating the points do any good? You've already made your decrees based on very misleading statements ("degrade the experience for the vast majority of its users"). --NeilN talk to me 03:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@Deskana: What the heck. I'll give it a shot. Please justify your comparison that Wikipedia pages are the "web" and Wikipedia search is "Google". This is a little grandiose and ignores the fact that Wikipedia pages have structure and Wikipedia does not contain a billion pages of garbage. Given the less than stellar parts of the current UI, please justify your assumption that a clearly marked "Sort by date" button would "result in degraded performance for the vast majority of users". Please justify your statement that "I've already outlined that sorting by date will, for the vast majority of users, generate meaningless results." You've repeated your assumption, you haven't justified it. --NeilN talk to me 04:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: That isn't exactly a positive start to the conversation. There's very little to be gained by debating the past, especially given your combative way of asking these questions. What would be productive is for us to work together to identify what it is you're trying to do, so that I can see if I can help support it. Why don't we start by you walking me through what task you're trying to accomplish? Then I can see if we can support it. Does that sound like something you'd be interested in doing? (P.S. Please don't ping my volunteer account with messages relating to my work, as I'm unlikely to see them; please ping User:Deskana (WMF) instead) --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Deskana (WMF), but you've already dismissed my use case (looking at articles containing a term which have recently changed) using the assumptions I've listed above. Now I'm asking you to justify them. --NeilN talk to me 04:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: I have already done so. You are within your rights to disagree that I have. However, that does mean that this is no longer a productive conversation, so I must discontinue it so I can get back to my work. Best wishes. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Not pinging Deskana as it's clear he no longer wishes to participate but can someone else look at the phab reports and point out where he's actually justified his assumptions? --NeilN talk to me 05:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Why didn't you just ask him to explain the parts of the justification you don't understand?--Anders Feder (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Anders Feder, what justification? All I see is a bunch of unsupported assertions. Kind of odd for a group that loves A/B testing. --NeilN talk to me 13:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is extremely slow[edit]

I am writing to report that English Wikipedia is extremely slow right now (I can not access WP:VPT), and sometimes gives an error:

"This page can't be displayed

•Make sure the web address is correct. •Look for the page with your search engine. •Refresh the page in a few minutes. •Make sure TLS and SSL protocols are enabled. Go to Tools > Internet Options > Advanced > Settings > Security"

Thanks, --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be a problem with your internet connection. It works fine for me. Tvx1 18:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Reply - Actually, I can access Spanish Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia just fine. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you follow the last step in the instructions given in the error message? --Malyacko (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like it could be a load-balancing problem in one of the WMF datacenters - see this thread for a previous example. Another reason may be slow JavaScript. Try logging out (or browsing in private mode, which essentially logs you out) and see if you still experience slowness. If things are still slow when you are logged out, it is a good indicator that it is a load-balancing problem rather than a JavaScript problem. If this is the case, please let us know roughly where you are in the world, as load-balancing problems are often limited to a specific geographical area. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Reply - The speed of English Wikipedia is back to normal. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC) broken yet again?[edit]

Cannot reach, name cannot be resolved. DNS lookup failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstone1029 (talkcontribs) 16:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading Non-acsii characters via mwclient[edit]

I am currently experiencing an issue when I try to read from pages with non-ascii characters that I lose that character. For instance, if I have prime symbol it is changed to a '?'. Has anyone experienced similar issues? I am utf-8 encoding everything once I have the text, but I have already lost the non-ascii characters prior. Any suggestions or support resources would be greatly appreciated.Julialturner (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Some minimal testcase might be welcome - how do you invoke mwclient? How did you set utf-8 encoding? Which underlying operating system is this about? --Malyacko (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure. I invoke mwclient like so:
     def connection(self): 
        useragent = 'Protein Box Bot, Run by The Scripps Research Institute:' 
        connection = mwclient.Site(('https', settings.BASE_SITE),clients_useragent=useragent) 
        connection.login(self.username, self.password) 
        return connection 
utf-8 is set like:
My os is Ubuntu 14.04. Thanks,Julialturner (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Search links not appearing[edit]

I just discovered that all my search links that are limited to searching the article text (eg. {{search link|text="buggy"}}) stopped rendering sometime in the past 48 hours past week (apparently my earlier conversation on this very board and with John of Reading on his userpage didn't use the text parameter). I've checked instances logged-in and logged-out, on Chrome and on Firefox, and I get the glitch in all cases. This does not seem to affect instances of {{Search link}} that do not have that limitation. I have not had a chance to test various alternates. Test matrix:

plaintext using <nowiki> tag – regular wikitext
{{search link|text="buggy"}} – "buggy" [restored as of 22:34 (UTC)]
{{search link|"buggy"}} – "buggy"

Insights will be welcome! —jameslucas (" " / +) 21:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Cpiral changed the parameter names in [1] without allowing the old names as aliases. That's problematic for an old template with many uses. I see Cpiral updated some uses of the old names. Was that all of them or are there still many? In either case I suggest allowing the old names. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Was problematic. With {{Template usage}} now anyone can now find all template usage and directly removing obsolete parameter usage from the wikitext, avoiding the need for backward compatible code. — CpiralCpiral 23:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
What does {{Template usage}} have got to do with breaking existing transclusions of another template? Alakzi (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Cpiral has been doing some strange things recently, see their edits to Help:Template over the last two weeks. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It was necessary to evolve {{search link}} for {{regex}} which was necessary for Help:Searching/Searching - DRAFT. My work on the {{Val}} family got me to create {{Template usage}}, which got me interested in improving Help:Template. — CpiralCpiral 23:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Replacing parameter names is a common newbie mistake. What about their edits to Help:Template? Alakzi (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: They have been rewriting whole sections, much of their new text is barely comprehensible. In this edit, for example, terms like "parameter" and "argument" are used almost interchangeably; and although they state early on that there are two kinds of parameter: named and unnamed. Soon after, we find that there is a third kind, the positional parameter, which is apparently not the same as an unnamed parameter. Have a look at each edit individually - they really are difficult to follow. The most recent large edit produced the paragraph
To improve readability many programming languages ignore much of the whitespace, so programmers can add newlines and indent almost at will. Because of the nature of transcluding text in place, seemlessly, MediaWiki software is very sensitive to whitespace, only allowing it around some places, but in most places newlines for code-readability are treated by the software as content, so the template code uses <!-- comments --> as a work around, adding <!-- before each newline character and --> after it.
which really is not an improvement in readability. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, I see what you mean. The documentation of {{Template usage}} is difficult to follow as well. Alakzi (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Awh, let's go ahead and sully the talk page at Help:Template. I've started a conversation there about the changes. You can refer to me in first person now. Thanks. — CpiralCpiral 00:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There's another big issue with updating parameter names: Many other projects rely on the template infrastructure of the English Wikipedia. Breaking stuff makes it much harder to adopt updates. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC).
I think I understand your concerns, but can you specify? I am not convinced that template infrastructure need develop differently than the way I am developing it. I can achieve new-feature parity for any template and avoid the need for carrying any backward compatible code, by directly changing every instance of obsolete parameter usage on the wiki, then changing the template. The documentation was updated. Was I supposed to change these few on the wiki in User space?CpiralCpiral 02:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation now spam[edit]

I found a citation to a website that is now squatted to a generic spam search. Luckily I was able to find an archive to link to. However I didn't want to leave the spam link, nor did I want to remove the url - I think I took the protocol identifier off, and left it at that. Is there a consensus way tot deal with these links? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

Check whether the link was recently replaced - some spammers replace links in citations, especially broken ones. Otherwise, standard editing will have to serve, along with link blacklisting if it happens repeatedly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Rich, that sounds like a good solution. Why don't you document it at WP:DEADREF, in case anyone else encounters the same problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Well given that the archive version was good, it obviously wasn't the type of "dead link spam" SEO'ers have been doing recently. And link blacklisting is no help against what happened several years ago,Face-smile.svg far better to generate a list of all external links to that domain and add archive urls where possible (a nice little job for automation, which, of course I cannot do!).
But thanks for the suggestion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC).

File upload problem[edit]

Problem fixed. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It looks like the "upload failed: invalid token" error message is showing up again when trying to upload files. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this about ? Which file types have you tried? Which browser is this about? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was the file upload wizard. And I tried to upload a jpeg via Google Chrome. But everything is working fine now, so I'll close this. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD Statistics[edit]

The AfD Statistics tool ([2]) shows my vote at WP:Articles for deletion/Bob Girls discography as "keep", abut in fact I proposed the article for deletion. Why is that? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You commented below someone else's support, which the tool probably picked up as "support". It should not do that, someone commenting on someone else's !vote is usually not a vote, or a contestation. Not sure why it ignored the nomination, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there somebody who can fix that? The author (Scottywong) is retired. I don't know whom to ask. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I was bold and have tweaked the page. What's probably going on is that you used the incorrect list type to start your comment (please read WP:Accessibility#Lists). Check in a day or two to see if that fixed it. --Izno (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Izno: Thanks a lot for your time, but it is still the same. The problem is not fixed. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Made a couple more tweaks. Wait a couple more days. --Izno (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Izno: Thank you very much. I think I found what's wrong. User:4minute lover signed his "keep" vote with a signature that contains a link to my talk page ([3]). That's very weird. He probably didn't know how to sign, but copied my signature. I changed it, and the AfD Statistic is now OK. I took a look into 4minute lover's edits, and I found that here he signed his post with a signature of User:Gene93k. Very strange behavior. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:SIGFORGE. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
That one with Gene looks like he was moving the deletion sorting notice, not signing the page with a new comment. Which it's weird, but separately weird. --Izno (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
This is what is so ugly about talk pages. They are messy and unstructured. WP:Flow would be much easier for tools like this to work with. But a lot of reactionary people wants it to fail.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of addresses such as: "" or "" for searchability etc.[edit]

Wikipedia namespaces
Subject namespaces Talk namespaces
0 (Main/Article) Talk 1
2 User User talk 3
4 Wikipedia Wikipedia talk 5
6 File File talk 7
8 MediaWiki MediaWiki talk 9
10 Template Template talk 11
12 Help Help talk 13
14 Category Category talk 15
100 Portal Portal talk 101
108 Book Book talk 109
118 Draft Draft talk 119
446 Education Program Education Program talk 447
710 TimedText TimedText talk 711
828 Module Module talk 829
2600 Topic
Virtual namespaces
-1 Special
-2 Media

At present talk pages for articles have addresses in formats such as: ""

If, however, the page has a title starting say with: "Category:Foo" the associated talk page is assigned its address in the format: ""

Would it be possible/practical to change talk page address formatting to "" for article talk pages and, for instance, "" for category talk pages. I would also be interested to know how possible it might be to use addresses such as "" and "" either with or without the initial capitalisation of the words "talk" and "category"?

The type of changes mentioned, I understand, would greatly increase the internet search-ability of talk pages as this would facilitate the use of search terms such as: search term/s.

GregKaye 10:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This may have been a good suggestion in the early days of the MediaWiki software, twelve or so years ago, but it's far too late to change now - too much depends on the existing pagename format and URL structure. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
And you can use keywords in Google like intitle and inurl to get the results you need. Graham87 11:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm puzzled. This is a search in talkspace and this is one in category talkspace. More fundamentally, consider using Special:Search with Advanced since it works well these days. --Izno (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I oppose the suggested change but will just note about the above Google search that Google doesn't actually index "Talk:". They do index some talk pages they picked up as "Talk%3A" where "%3A" is a percent-encoded ":" and our servers produce the same content. I don't know why Google drops "Talk:". I don't see anything relevant in, and there is no noindex in the html of the pages (if there were then it should also be in the %3A versions). I don't want Google to index talk pages, I just wonder what stops them. Did Google decide on their own that talk pages are too uninformative to deserve the high placement they would get? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Google has special cleverness for Wikipedia. As far as I know they have not shared what it is. I am pretty sure they do not honour __NOINDEX__ though. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC).
This wouldn't work because it would clash with Main namespace pages containing slashes in the title. An article named "Talk/Foo" would have the same URI as the Talk page for the page named "Foo". Slashes in URIs are already an issue in MediaWiki, since MediaWiki uses them as part of the page title for subpages, which raises the same issue of potential URI clashes. So, MediaWiki has a setting that allows you to disable subpages on a per-namespace basis, with them off by default in the Main namespace (which is the setting Wikipedia uses). You also touched on initial capitals in page titles, which are another pain point. By default the first character in a page title is case-insensitive, so [[Foo]] and [[foo]] will go to the same page, which is what people tend to expect. Wiktionary has this setting toggled so it can have different articles on, e.g., Rock and rock, but this means you always have to pay attention to the initial capital in wikilinks, and I think it messes with searching too. Basically there's never a perfect solution for anything in (software) engineering. It's all about what tradeoffs you choose. -- (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

What just happened to the watchlist?[edit]

I have MonoBook skin, not some beta-testing Mobile thing. The box at the top of the Watchlist, with various options, has just gone all Facebooky, grey and unreadable with lots of blank space. How can I switch it back to how it was? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"Invert selection" and "Associated namespace" only apply if a namespace has been selected so they are grey before that. Do you see other grey parts, or are they still grey after a namespace selection? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I too have MonoBook. Multiple buttons are very large all of a sudden, and the Invert selection/Associated namespace checkboxes have a bit of excessive whitespace around them. Dustin (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Why is "Mark all pages as visited" so big? I never use that button so I don't know why it needs to take up so much vertical space. Sam Walton (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that needs fixing. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yup. A waste of space - poor ergonomics. 18:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talkcontribs)
@PrimeHunter: The obviously-visible items are: the word "Namespace"; the word "all" below that; two grey squares (which may be checkboxes - without the familiar inset border it's hard to tell); a "Go" button, which is much bigger than it used to be - and with a background of light blue instead of silver. There is also some barely-readable grey text; dragging my mouse over it, I see that it's "Invert selection" and "Associated namespace". I also find that the namespace selector has a border that is so pale that it's even less noticeable than that grey text. Going away and coming back I find that the text starts off black but quickly turns grey, like there's some javaScript going on. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be fixed. Back to how it was before. - NQ (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, with black text, very little superfluous space, the namespace selector and checkboxes white within inset border, and a silver button. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
This looks like gerrit:211131, which was the patch for task phab:T99256. I assume someone just rolled it back... — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 19:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I see it was reverted by Legoktm in gerrit:228046 just now. The spacing problems with the new patch are tracked in phab:T107311 if people are interested. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 19:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the change of watchlist interface was indeed deployed prematurely (and now reverted), and we missed some of the display issues with it (mostly there wasn't meant to be that much whitespace, and it behaved strangely on small screens). I didn't author or accept it myself, but I reviewed it and didn't flag them. We're going to be trying again, with feeling this time, probably next-next week (week of 10 August). Please watch phab:T99256 for updates (you can "Subscribe" if you have a Phabricator account to receive updates by e-mail), I'll make sure there's a testing wiki with the patch set up and linked from that patch at least a few days earlier, for everyone to play with and comment. Matma Rex talk 20:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Annotations in small images[edit]

The death of general warren at the battle of bunker hill.jpg

I don't know how many people have set their preferences to be able to view image annotations from Commons, but the feature can cause problems in small resolutions, where it is far more annoying than useful. It's not so much the plethora of tiny yellow boxes that can obscure an image without highlighting anything visible, as it is the text that appears below it—"This file has annotations. Move the mouse pointer over the image to see them."—which can take up more space than the image itself. I noticed this phenomenon in the display templates for good topics (where I initially tried to solicit opinions, before giving it a try here), but I imagine it can affect small images everywhere, such as in navigation templates.

The situation hasn't changed much in two-and-a-half years (except perhaps the increased likelihood of coming across an image with annotations), and my question is this: is there a way to suppress the feature when displaying an image? And if not, could one be devised? Waltham, The Duke of 14:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@The Duke of Waltham: I've gone to Preferences → Gadgets and enabled "ImageAnnotator, to view notes and comments that people have placed upon images shown on file description pages.". Where can I see these tiny yellow boxes and the text below it? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The death of general warren at the battle of bunker hill.jpg
The death of general warren at the battle of bunker hill.jpg
I for example see it for File:The death of general warren at the battle of bunker hill.jpg at Wikipedia:Featured topics/Boston campaign. It's not in thumbs but without thumb and with at least 89px I get the yellow boxes and "This file has annotations. Move the mouse pointer over the image to see them." The first version displayed here is 88px and the second 89px. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Nope. Is it skin- or browser-specific? I use MonoBook and Firefox 39. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
In Firefox 39 I see it in both MonoBook and Vector. The text is made with JavaScript and is added shortly after page load. The yellow boxes are only visible when hovering over the image. I don't know whether the 89px limit depends on anything. I have added a 400px version where I also see the text and yellow boxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Aha. I needed to also disable "Redirect image links to Commons for files that are hosted there". Seems that they can't coexist. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The death of general warren at the battle of bunker hill.jpg
Thank you for the detailed investigation. It makes sense that there would be a size limit, but it really is arbitrary because it depends on the specific image and its level of detail. And as I've said, the text takes up a lot of space.
It turns out that a closer study of the documentation reveals the possibility of turning annotations off, at least in Commons. There's a template there, ImageNoteControl, which incorporates the feature and that could be transferred here. No, wait; it's already here, though there is no interwiki link on the Commons page so it's not immediately apparent. {{ImageNoteControl}} in en.wikipedia is primarily transcluded in File pages themselves, and... little else, which is also curious. The page is practically an orphan; no wonder most people have probably never heard of it in its five-year history.
Although my programming skills are extremely limited, I think I've managed to copy the template's relevant command here and suppress annotations in the medium-sized image on the right. (I have no idea if there is any difference between span and div, though; they're both in the template.) If someone knows how to make this—the command rather than the entire ImageNoteControl template—part of {{Featured topic box}}, that would solve the immediate problem. For other small images, more publicity for {{ImageNoteControl}} might be desirable. Waltham, The Duke of 06:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that it's "cleaner" to have three classes instead of just one: class="wpImageAnnotatorControl wpImageAnnotatorOff wpImageAnnotatorCaptionOff" As for <div>...</div> versus <span>...</span> it depends upon the context. For images used as block elements (as with all examples so far) div is correct; for images used inline, like this The death of general warren at the battle of bunker hill.jpg then span is correct. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@The Duke of Waltham: In the case of {{featured topic box}} the image is inline, so <span>...</span> is correct. This edit should do it; compare Wikipedia:Featured topics/Boston campaign/sandbox with Wikipedia:Featured topics/Boston campaign. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Capital! This is exactly the desired effect. Thank you very much for your trouble—and for the impromptu HTML lesson along the way. It would feel wrong for me to implement your edit, especially considering the possibility that you might still want to tinker with it, so I'll leave it for you to proceed with that step whenever you are ready. Other than that... I'll see if I can find some image-related help page in the English Wikipedia where inserting a mention of {{ImageNoteControl}} would be productive. Waltham, The Duke of 11:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Apparently, notifications work in a very specific way. This time it ought to work. Waltham, The Duke of 12:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Redrose64 (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Main page on mobile[edit]

Breaking with centuries of tradition I today views the mainpage from a mobile phone. A lot of the content, for example DYK was not visible. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC).

It's by design. At Talk:Main Page/Archive 182#Link to full Main Page for mobile users I suggested an option for mobile users to see the full main page without having to switch to desktop. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
On the german mobile WP main page you get it all ("Für die mobile Hauptseite wurden bisher die Rubriken Artikel des Tages, Was geschah am?, In den Nachrichten, Kürzlich Verstorbene und Schon gewusst? aktiviert.") Youu can decide it, and see --Atlasowa (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

What does a Healthy Community look like to you?[edit]

Community Health Cover art News portal.png

The Community Engagement department at the Wikimedia Foundation has launched a new learning campaign. The WMF wants to record community impressions about what makes a healthy online community. Share your views and/or create a drawing and take a chance to win a Wikimania 2016 scholarship! Join the WMF as we begin a conversation about Community Health. Contribute a drawing or answer the questions on the campaign's page.

Why get involved?[edit]

The world is changing. The way we relate to knowledge is transforming. As the next billion people come online, the Wikimedia movement is working to bring more users on the wiki projects. The way we interact and collaborate online are key to building sustainable projects. How accessible are Wikimedia projects to newcomers today? Are we helping each other learn?
Share your views on this matter that affects us all!
We invite everyone to take part in this learning campaign. Wikimedia Foundation will distribute one Wikimania Scholarship 2016 among those participants who are eligible.

More information[edit]

Happy editing!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A healthy community is definitely one where people get blocked for hate speech.Codeofdusk (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Image metadata, here v. Commons[edit]

I just moved File:Putter Green.jpg to Commons under the same filename because it was a simple process: PD-self claim and no hiccups. Moving it there, however, I observed that the metadata were a lot fuller (we have an image title, for example), and some of them appear to indicate a copyvio: for example, it's listed as being a work of The Augusta Chronicle, and through it I discovered that author Andrew Davis Tucker is a newspaper photographer who was with the Chronicle at the date of the photograph, not a Clemson golfer as suggested by the uploader's username.

Judging by the metadata I could see here, the image is fine, but judging by the metadata I could see at Commons, it's not. Why do files here display less metadata? Click the extended metadata link at the bottom of the filepage here, and the result is 37 metadata fields; click the extended metadata link at the bottom of the filepage at Commons for the same image, and the result is 55 metadata fields. Is there a way to adjust what metadata fields are displayed? If so, why don't we adjust it so that files display more fields? Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I suspect there is a difference between how Wikipedia and Commons treat metadata information. There is this page and this page but they are the same so likely not. I'll dig further. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think those specific pages are relevant, since the names don't appear when you view with ?uselang=qqx. I've left a note at the Commons village pump asking people there to offer input here. Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
It might be a "metadata.js" thing as described on Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes. Or in other words, a difference between site settings in Commons and Wikipedia. This might be the case for a Phabricator topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I wondered whether the displayed metadata is extracted at upload time or some other past time and depends on the MediaWiki software at the time so I uploaded an identical copy at File:Putter Green copy.jpg. It displays the same metadata as commons:File:Putter Green.jpg so that must be the explanation. File:Putter Green.jpg was uploaded in 2006 and displays less metadata. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Its an old file. Maybe the software didnt detect these metadata at that time (see mediawikiwiki:Manual:Image table). Try upload it to enwiki again. Christian75 (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I found mw:Manual:$wgUpdateCompatibleMetadata which is false by default and remains false in Wikimedia wikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


Recently I've notice a user added Vido to Category:Islands of Greece. It is indeed an island in Greece, but the article is already in the Category:Islands of the Ionian Islands (region), which is then contained in the Category:Islands of Greece. This way, the article is included in the Category:Islands of Greece twice. Is it possible to make some software limitation that would prevent this? That would prevent an article being thrown into a category to whose subcategory it already belongs? Or, if this is not possible, is it that possible to make a bot that would remove such redundant categories? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: It's not clear-cut, see WP:CATDIFFUSE and WP:DUPCAT. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Precisely. This is, frankly, an ambiguous provision that cannot easily be decided and makes no real sense. We'd be much better off enforcing the Commons policy, which prohibits the inclusion of parent categories with a single easy-to-identify exception. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Module:Citation/CS1 incorrectly adding pages using edition=revised to tracking category[edit]

Module:Citation/CS1 automatically adds "ed." after the value of the edition parameter. Citations that explicitly use something like "2nd ed." are added to the hidden maintenance category Category:CS1 maint: Extra text to allow fixing these values more easily. However, the module probably just checks whether the value ends with "edition", "ed" or similar. This leads to issues on pages like Pi, where a reference (No. 79, The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers) gets incorrectly marked as erroneous because it uses "edition=revised", which ends with "ed". Is this a bug? —Maths314 (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a bug that has been fixed in the sandbox. Questions and concerns about this module are best addressed at Help talk:Citation Style 1.
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Citations are weird[edit]

I just added a citation to same-sex marriage in Mexico for Puebla:

In November 2014 a lesbian couple filed for an amparo and were granted an injunction to marry. The state appealed the decision. 10 July, 2015, the Appellate Court upheld the ruling in favor of the couple. Their wedding, which was the first same-sex marriage in the state of Puebla<ref name="1st marriage">{{cite news|last1=Hernández Alcántara|first1=Martín|title=Mañana se celebrará el primer matrimonio gay en la historia de Puebla|url=|accessdate=31 July 2015|publisher=La Jornada de Oriente|date=31 July 2015|location=Puebla, Mexico|language=Spanish}}</ref> took place on 1 August 2015.<ref name="1st marriage">{{cite news|last1=Fernández|first1=Tuss|title=Se celebra en Puebla la primera boda de personas del mismo sexo|url=|accessdate=3 August 2015|publisher=La Dobe|date=2 August 2015|location=Puebla, Mexico|language=Spanish}}</ref> As you can plainly see the text is different, but the numbers are the same: 254 is the citation number for both. Edit was made at 19:03 and it is still the same at 19:18? SusunW (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: This has happened because you've given both the references the same name, "1st marriage", so MediaWiki thinks your second reference is actually a reuse of the first one rather than a totally new reference. If you change the name of one of the references, it'll be fixed. Hope that helps. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Some days one can't see the forest for the trees ;) SusunW (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia email[edit]

Is Wikimedia email currently working? I sent an email to another user about an hour ago, ticked the box to receive a confirmation copy to my registered email address, got the on-screen confirmation that the email had been sent, but never received the confirmation email. Can this be independently checked? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The easiest way to check would be to have a different account with a different email address, and try to email that account. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Good idea, OM. I should have thought of that. I have three alternative accounts that I use to maintain separate large watch lists. I will try emailing one of those accounts. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Od Mishehu: About 45 minutes ago, I tried to send an email from my alternate account, Dirtlawyer2: Olympics, to my primary user account, Dirtlawyer1. I have not received either the email sent to the recipient account, or the confirmation email that the email system is supposed to generate for the sender account. About 10 minutes ago, I also sent a test email to you through the Wikipedia email system. Please let me know if you do or don't receive it. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Some mail providers block Wikimedia mail due to the way it is sent. See for example Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 136#Email is not working and phab:T66795. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Better to direct people to a thread that has less of Technical 13's scary misinformation, like Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 129#Is "Email this user" on the blink? and the threads linked back from there. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, it would be better to direct people to with a brief explanation that Yahoo mail is broken and that there is little we can do about it except possibly block Yahoo mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
As I've suggested a few times since this problem presented itself, we could resolve this issue by correctly and accurately identifying the sender (albeit by proxy) of the email as Wikimedia and provide the email address of the Wikipedia user who requested Wikimedia send the email in the reply-to field.
Alternatively, each user with email enable could be assigned virtual email address that Wikimedia would route to their actual email., for example. –xenotalk 13:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Upload file from Commons[edit]

Hi there, Wikipedians!

First, this is not a very polished script, so forgive the omissions and thrown-together UI.

At Wikimania, I wrote a gadget that uploaded from enwiki beta to Commons beta. And it worked. And it was brilliant.

Now, the code required for that gadget is on enwiki proper. So I ported the script over to enwiki.

All you need is the following line in your common.js to enable it:

importScript( 'User:MarkTraceur/editPageUploadTool.js' );

After that, a second "insert file" icon will appear in WikiEditor after a second or two, and its title text will be "upload file" or something.

Note, this is going to Commons, under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, so by reading this and installing my script you're agreeing to those terms when you upload...see, I told you it was unpolished. In the Future, it will have a license disclaimer.

This is going to be the very rough basis for our upcoming tools, which will live both in WikiEditor and in VisualEditor. They will definitely have proper license disclaimers.

In this grand tradition, you can create subclasses of my mw.Upload object(s), and my mw.UploadDialog object(s), and write specialized upload tools for various purposes. Want to add a special category to images in a class of articles that you edit often? Easy! Subclass mw.CommonsUploadForEditDialog to return a subclass of mw.CommonsUploadForEdit which adds the category in automatically on creation. This is only one example of the cool, specialized stuff you can do.

See the documentation for mw.Upload on!/api/mw.Upload

Happy hacking! --MarkTraceur (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikitables - unable to disambiguate links[edit]

Wikitables on the following articles Athletics at the 1962 British Empire and Commonwealth Games – Women's 100 yards, Athletics at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Women's 400 metres, Athletics at the 1962 British Empire and Commonwealth Games – Women's 220 yards, and Australia at the 1962 British Empire and Commonwealth Games generate links to Joyce Bennett, but they should link to Joyce Bennett (athlete) (a legitimate redlink). I cannot see how to edit the wikitable to make them generate the correct links. Help please! DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Like so, per the Template:Sortname documentation. --Izno (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
You can also do this using |dab=athlete as opposed to my solution for each of the template uses. I think my solution is marginally easier to understand. YMMV. --Izno (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks - I went with the first method. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-32[edit]

15:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata: Access to data from arbitrary items is coming[edit]

(Sorry for writing in English)

When using data from Wikidata on Wikipedia and other sister projects, there is currently a limitation in place that hinders some use cases: data can only be accessed from the corresponding item. So, for example, the Wikipedia article about Berlin can only get data from the Wikidata item about Berlin but not from the item about Germany. This had technical reasons. We are now removing this limitation. It is already done for many projects. Your project is one of the next ones. We will roll out this feature here on August 18.

We invite you to play around with this new feature if you are one of the people who have been waiting for this for a long time. If you have technical issues/questions with this you can come to d:Wikidata:Contact the development team.

A note of caution: Please be careful with how many items you use for a single page. If it is too many pages, loading might get slow. We will have to see how the feature behaves in production to see where we need to tweak and how.

How to use it, once it is enabled:

Cheers Lydia Pintscher MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's see if this works in two weeks: The capital of Germany is: .--Anders Feder (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)