Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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. If you want to report a JavaScript error, please follow this guideline. Questions about MediaWiki in general should be posted at the MediaWiki support desk.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ) (see also: Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical)
Click "[show]" next to each point to see more details.
If something looks wrong, purge the server's cache, then bypass your browser's cache.
This tends to solve most issues, including improper display of images, user-preferences not loading, and old versions of pages being shown.
Font size changed unexpectedly?
You may have accidentally changed the font size on your browser for a particular website by pressing a shortcut key or scrollwheel without realising it. Try resetting the zoom with Ctrl+0 (typing the digit zero while holding down the control key) or adjusting the zoom with Ctrl++ or Ctrl+-. Alternatively, look for the View option on your browser's menu and reset it to 100%.
No, we will not use JavaScript to set focus on the search box.
This would interfere with usability, accessibility, keyboard navigation and standard forms. See bug 1864. There is an accesskey property on it (default to accesskey="f" in English), and for logged in users there is a gadget available in your preferences.
No, we will not add a spell-checker, or spell-checking bot.
You can use a web browser such as Firefox, which has a spell checker.
If you have problems making your fancy signature work, check Wikipedia:How to fix your signature.
If you changed to another skin and cannot change back, use this link.
Alternatively, you can press Tab until the "Save" button is highlighted, and press Enter. Using Mozilla Firefox also seems to solve the problem.
If an image thumbnail is not showing, try purging its image description page.
If the image is from Wikimedia Commons, you might have to purge there too. If it doesn't work, try again before doing anything else. Some ad blockers, proxies, or firewalls block URLs containing /ad/ or ending in common executable suffixes. This can cause some images or articles to not appear.
Numbers listed in parentheses in the "Recent changes" section, on history pages and in your watchlist are the number of added or removed bytes.
For server or network status, please see Wikimedia Metrics.
« Archives, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172

Should this edit have happened?[edit]

I'm unsure why this edit was possible. The article should have been fully protected. Is it server synchronisation lag, or a bug? Interference with PC1?

Samsara 11:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You fully protected and your next edit was to change that to pending changes. Doesn't that "overwrite" the full protection? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@CambridgeBayWeather: Both forms of protection were configured in one step, I did not enter the menu twice. In my experience up to this point, PC can run concurrently with hard protections, it simply has no effect and kicks in again eventually if its duration is longer than that of the hard protection. This is also the only way to avoid having this other bug (untriaged for a year now!) Samsara 18:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a bug, Pending Changes should not affect page protection, which allows it to be used to extend protection, or a page with PC to have its protection level increased temporarily. Danski454 (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it a bug, really? Pending changes should only be configured on an article that is allowing edits by editors below the level of administrator, and if PC is being configured, then it would logically drop the full protection. There is no value to PC if the article is fully protected. Perhaps the bigger question is why anyone would enable PC when fully protecting an article. Risker (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Using pending changes and another level of protection (usually semi-protection) allows having some level of protection after the full/semi protection expires, as it basically allows setting multiple protections of different durations. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
In any case, the full protection was immediately lifted within the same minute after application, and dropped to Extended Confirmed protection; the user who made the edit is at the EC level, and edited several minutes after the EC protection was applied. The article was fully protected for less than a minute, and there is an edit summary when dropping to EC that indicates it was an intentional decision. Nothing here indicates that there's a bug. Risker (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC) Sorry, I misread the protection log and saw 11:40 as 11:04. Mea culpa. Risker (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • A page with both FP and PC1 should not be editable (see Wikipedia:Sandbox2 for an example) - but it could be buggy under just the wrong timing or conditions - does not appear to be happening now, and this is hard to replicate. — xaosflux Talk 19:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 110431 - Edit Protection Set to admin
  • 110431 - Pending changes set to autoconfirmed
  • 110809 - The suspect edit took place, appears to violoate the edit protection
@Risker: I'm not seeing the "full protection was immediately lifted within the same minute" - what am I missing? — xaosflux Talk 19:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Mea culpa, I misread the protection log. The change from full protection to EC protection was at 11:40, not 11:04. Risker (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

So the answer seems to be, nobody really knows, it just occasionally happens, is not reproducible, and will in all likelihood never get fixed. Samsara 00:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Samsara: Well, issues that are not reproducible are not easy to fix. It'll get fixed eventually when it's more fully understood, possibly when investigating other issues, as currently the details are hazy and the issue relatively harmless. I can see this old issue from phab T4737 where something like that was reported but couldn't be reproduced, so had to be closed as invalid. If this is reported (as is), it's similar scenario that would play out. FWIW, when you first posted this message I visited the page and it was quite fully protected and so it was in ?action=info. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It just happened again: Googol. Unprotection is in the log, but not taking effect. IP reporting to not be able to edit, action=info also reports it as protected. I'm not going to fix it now so that people can poke at it in its current state if they wish. I'm starting to think that this is a recent bug and probably reproducible. Specifically, I suspect that simultaneous configuration of pending changes and page protection no longer works reliably. When pending changes is changed, any changes to page protection done at the same time seem to generate a log entry and do nothing else.

Reporting this and will add link here shortly. Samsara 10:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Fabricator link:

Samsara 10:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Green watchlist bullets do not turn blue[edit]

Today is Thursday. And now when I visit a link from my watchlist, and then go back to the watchlist, the green bullet stays green instead of turning blue. This problem occurs even for deleted redlinked pages. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow, you just beat me here by like 3 minutes. I've noticed this a couple times today, but in both cases, my watchlist had green bullets for articles in which I had made the most recent edit. If I actually go back to the article, the bullet will go back to blue. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
(Well, now that I say that, a couple of them are now insisting on staying green, even though some have gone back to blue, so I dunno). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
They change to greyish cyan (specifically,      #638c9c) for me. But then I use MonoBook skin. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I've been having this problem on other wikis too, including en.wiktionary and en.wikivoyage. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
They look OK to me in monobook and in vector. Do you have "Use non-JavaScript interface" set in your prefs? — xaosflux Talk 01:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
(e/c) GeoffreyT2000, there have been some changes in the watchlist logic this week. Can it be that they work, but are not updated as quickly as you are used to ? —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm a monobook user and have "unseen changes" set as a filter and "expand watchlist to show all changes" set in preferences. Until recently, if I viewed a change and returned to the watchlist, that change would no longer be showing. Now the item remains stuck in the watchlist. This would seem to be the same problem as above. I think they might clear on browser restart, but I'm not sure on that point – I'll try that in a moment and report.SpinningSpark 13:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm finding that on all the WMF wikis where I'm active, pages are only inconsistently marked as read after I look at the changes. I'm pretty sure this problem started less than 48 hours ago. It's really frustrating and makes my watchlist hard to use. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@TheDJ: If this is a timing issue, then it is persistent for an extraordinarily long time. Yesterday, I had items in my watchlist that hadn't cleared after several hours. I eventually dealt with it by "mark all pages visited" nuclear option. There does seem to be some inconsistency - I was looking at the possibility that it was connected with the number of unseen edits on an individual page or whether one viewed the page or the diff, but for the last couple of hours it been somewhat better behaved and I didn't get anywhere with that. SpinningSpark 14:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I now think the way it works is this: if there are multiple unseen edits on a page and the one you look at is not the first one made, then that edit will get stuck on your watchlist, even if you then go back and view the first one, which will also stay stuck. Those who don't have their watchlist expanded to show all edits don't have a choice; they are going to view the last edit and it will stick on the watchlist unless it was the only one made. If you actually make an edit to the page it's taken off the watchlist. SpinningSpark 19:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
To me it seems much more random and inconsistent than that. Sometimes editing the page doesn't even solve the problem—I just edited wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub, and my own edit (along with the other recent edits to the page) is still displaying on my watchlist as if I haven't yet visited it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm seeing my own edits that I've just made show up on my watchlist too, whereas previously they hadn't. I often can't clear those pages from the watchlist, even if I visit the current incarnation of the page or view the last diff. Has been happening since 10am Pacific for me. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Can anything be done about this? Who can I contact to fix this problem? It is still extremely frustrating. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Mx. Granger: see mw:How_to_report_a_bug. Please share the bug number here for other's benefit after creating. — xaosflux Talk 14:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I suspect this might be fixed with this change. It is a followup change that is part of phab:T188801. Hopefully it can be deployed asap. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem. If I visit a page any way other than by clicking on it on my watchlist, it's not marked as read. TheDJ, Neither of those links are working for me. Is that broken too? Natureium (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There's an issue at the moment with, among other things, phabricator. ~ Amory (utc) 19:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Also an issue: if there's a long list of unseen changes, and I compare the oldest unseen and the subsequent, say, 3 changes (but there are more than 3 changes unseen after that), then return to the article History, it lists all revisions as seen. Definitely not what should be happening, because I haven't seen those other revisions. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed this issue too. It doesn't interfere with my workflow, so I haven't brought it up, but I can imagine it might bother other editors. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems they overfixed this, as I now have the opposite: a page which is marked as "visited" now stays marked as "visited" even after new edits have been made to it (I don't use the green and blue, I use the blue circle / filled blue circle version, FWIW). Fram (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at this further, it seems as if a page stays "read" until a new section is posted, while in the past it changed to unread as soon as anything was posted. I don't know if this change was deliberate or not, but I prefered the old way, certainly since there is no per section watchlisting. Fram (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Spaces changed to NBSPs (by the iOS app), breaking template parameter assignments[edit]

What happened here? Some spaces seem to be replaced by spaces of a different kind. After this edit, the items type and fatalities are no longer displayed in the infobox. --FredTC (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Those were "raw" (meaning not encoded like   or  ) non-breaking spaces (NBSP), and those don't work as separators in template parameter assignments like regular spaces do, hence the disappearing items – same thing happens if you replace a space with  . --Pipetricker (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
But how did such spaces get there? I have no way to detect that they are there. When I edit the version I mentioned, and select/copy (ctrl-C) the code for the infobox, then paste it to a notepad.exe file, I cannot see a difference. Can I produce it by accident? How? --FredTC (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Per the tag of the edit you linked to, in this case the culprit was the official Wikipedia iOS app.
If you want to report this as a bug in the iOS app, go to mw:Wikimedia Apps/Team/Bug reporting.
Some text editors highlight NBSPs (for example LibreOffice Writer) or have an option to do so (the Show all formatting marks, ¶, option in Microsoft Word). There are feature requests for MediaWiki at Phabricator:
--Pipetricker (talk) 15:10, 15 March (UTC), 23:26, 09:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I found a similar occurrence (another iOS app edit of the same page, one day later) and have reported this:
--Pipetricker (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The translation tool also inserts the 160 nbsp character which I have removed several times while cleaning another of its bizarre habits, most recently at diff. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

New template: WikiProject link[edit]

Hi all! I have created a new template that you can use to link to WikiProject pages at {{WikiProject link}} (or {{proj}} for short), analogous to {{User link}}. For example, to link to WikiProject Biography, you can type {{proj|Biography}}, which produces WikiProject Biography. Please use this template and leave feedback on the template talk page. Also, feel free to modify or extend the template as long as you keep the basic interface the same. Thanks! Cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 03:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I have commented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#New template that we already have {{wplink}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Purge cache[edit]

How do I purge the cache for the small portal links that appear in the Template:Portal or Template:Portal bar? Mitchumch (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If a page transcludes a template and something changes in the template then the whole page will automatically be rendered again but it can take time before the job queue gets to it. You can purge a specific page with immediate effect but you still have to purge the whole page. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
PrimeHunter This does not appear to be the case for article pages that used to be linked to File:AmericaAfrica.svg (see here for full list). The image was part of the small portal links for Portal:African American. Article pages with those small links don't seem to purge the old image file. I was using null edits, but I should not have to do that. The article page Jenn Shaw is one example of this problem. Mitchumch (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I examined Jenn Shaw and 20 other pages at your link. They had all been updated to display File:Kleed- Stichting Nationaal Museum van Wereldculturen - RV-5899-18 (cropped).jpg. It can take much longer to update link tables than to render the articles. A purge of an article will update the article page but not the link tables associated with the article. The latter requires a null edit to do right away. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
That "much longer" can be months, sometimes forever. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I'll null edit the remaining articles. Mitchumch (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I see no reason to use server resources on that. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


Do we have a tool that helps to easily import pages? (Aside from special:import)--▸ ‎épine talk 14:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

piped links in templates?[edit]

Could somebody look at the {{distinguish}} hatnote on Draft:Hernan Larrain Matte. It's rendering badly. I suspect it has to do with the piped link in the template arguments, but my template-fu isn't strong enough to fix it myself. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith:  fixed --DannyS712 (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox map tooltips[edit]

I noticed something in the infobox on the England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland articles (tho it might be on more). When you hover hover the the biggest "zoomed in" part of the map, the tooltips have some css in them (eg, Scotland's is Location of  .mw-parser-output .nobold{font-weight:normal}Scotland  (dark green) – in Europe  (green & dark grey) – in the United Kingdom  (green)). I tried poking around the wikitext used in the templates, but I can't seem to find the cause (might be due to how templatestyles injects Template:Nobold/styles.css, but that would probably require a phab ticket). --Terra (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It's due to the usage of {{nobold}} in {{Infobox_country_UK}}. I'm not a fan of adding templatestyles to inline and 'style only' templates like that. It makes no sense, because the CSS belongs with the template USING nobold, and the nobold template should be removed from a template that is using it really. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 07:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that in another template it makes sense for the surrounding template to take the entirety of the styling. That said, no one seems to have been interested when I tried to discuss how we should deal with CSS for metatemplates. So... --Izno (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Lee Dixon.jpg[edit]

There's something strange happening with this image that might be related to a file name change on Commonswikidata/meta data or something. When you click on this file, you're basically seeing the Commons image c:File:Lee Dixon 2015-02-10 1.jpg which was recently moved from c:File:Lee Dixon.jpg. It appears that the Commons file was moved becoming it was being shadowed by the local non-free file of the same name. However, something strange happened as a result of the move and it's almost if the non-free file has been overwritten by the Commons file. The local non-free file is "File:Lee Dixon.jpg" and should be infobox image used in Lee Dixon (actor) I'm not sure why this is happening, but it needs to be sorted out before the non-free file get mistakenly deleted per WP:F5 or WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps one better asks this on Commons (links back to here) Klaas `Z4␟` V 22:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
This appears to be a bug, I'm opening a phab ticket. In the meantime, I've broken the redirect at commons and it appears to have restored our local behavior. — xaosflux Talk 00:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly and KlaasZ4usV: this appears to be phab:T30299, opened about 5 years ago and noone is working on. — xaosflux Talk 00:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks KlaasZ4usV and Xaosflux for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Any time, Marchjuly, you're more than welcome Face-smile.svg Klaas `Z4␟` V 11:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Poorly interacting templates[edit]

It seems like a few articles are suddenly (without any changes to the articles themselves) showing a lot of "$NaN" where {{Inflation}} is piped in to {{Formatprice}}. Check out e.g. Macy's, Inc. ("2010 retail sales revenue of $25 billion (equivalent to $NaN in 2019)."). Even one of the examples on the documentation for {{Inflation}} is broken. I don't see any changes to the templates themselves either. I suspect something changed to make {{Inflation}} start outputting scientific notation like "2.032×109" instead of "2.032E+9" and {{Formatprice}} can't handle that, but I don't know what that change could be. —BorgHunter (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The format change in {{Inflation}} happens for numbers above 109. It was caused by [1] where Pppery changed {{Decimals}} from Module:Decimals to {{Rnd}} due to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 14#Template:Rnd. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, isn't always annoying when you implement a template merge and some unexpected issue crops up. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire clean up list[edit]

Hello all, sorry about this but I am a complete novice when it comes to this stuff, hence why I am asking for help..... The clean-up list for WP Yorkshire has been going to a blank page with 502 Bad Gateway error for about five days now; anybody any ideas how to resolve this? Is it as simple as repointing the link? Help! *Clean up list is here. Thank you and regards. The joy of all things (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This has been sorted. Thanks anyway. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-12[edit]

19:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

About the "Partial blocks": My team isn't involved, so my information may be out of date, but this is supposed to let admins block someone from ≤10 specifically named pages, or from one namespace (e.g., no direct editing of articles or templates), so it might be useful for enforcing some types of TBANs in software. If the English Wikipedia wants to try this out, then I believe that the team will need proof of community consensus, and that if you don't specifically request it, then it won't be offered here until most of the other wikis have tried it out first (because scale). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Being able to block editing based on one or more categories would be absolutely aces for topic bans.--Jorm (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
That team has talked about it, but hasn't figured out how to make it happen yet. I suggested once that they consider planning for hidden cats like "Category:Pages covered by ArbCom case Example", rather than a regular content cat such as "Category:Cancer" (which might be added or removed by people who didn't understand the related effects). Of course, it wouldn't be perfect (for example, if you're banned from editing about a subject, then you're banned from creating pages on that subject, too, even though those new pages won't be in any category yet), but it might be helpful overall. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Another danger is someone adding or removing the category to screw around with what someone else's block covers. True, in most cases that would lead to a swift block for the user/IP doing the screwing-around, but we do have plenty of wikilawyers around who might take "broadly construed" pretty broadly... Anomie 02:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Blue Publish Button on Upper Right[edit]

I noticed there is a slightly different interface when I go to publish. There's a blue Publish button on the upper right and on clicking it you have the option of comparing against previous version, preview, resume editing, or publishing. Is this a new interface that was rolled out for everyone or am I seeing it because I checked all the Beta options in preferences, including Wikitext mode? Thanks. Lore E. Mariano (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

LoreMariano, "I checked all the Beta options in preferences, including Wikitext mode" <-- this —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! TheDJ (talkcontribs Lore E. Mariano (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

List of pages using multiple infoboxes[edit]

Is there any list of pages using multiple infoboxes? What does the Wikipedia policy say about that? Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 15:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: I don't know of such a list. Normal wikitext searches won't work for this because most child infoboxes also have names beginning with "infobox".
I don't think there are any policies that would directly affect infoboxes in this way. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes does not have any guidance on this, and the language implies (but does not explicitly say) that one infobox is the default. Regardless, as you've probably noticed, in practice there are a number of pages which include more than one infobox, often to describe multiple topics or entities covered in the same article (e.g. Great Belt Fixed Link), or to separate information into groups (e.g. Georgetown University). Jc86035 (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
This search which times out (for probably obvious reasons) is a short list of some multi-infobox pages. --Izno (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Internet Archive link[edit]

The Internet Achive link at Martin Luther#External links returns 18 271 results. Adding |birth=1483|death=1546|sopt=t only reduces them to 18 265. Is there a way to reduce the results returned?

A direct link to the IA page with relevant filters  didn't work, maybe because the brackets in the link messed it up:

Jonund (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(I fixed the broken link by copying the URL (and link label) from Martin Luther#External links. --Pipetricker 18:40, 19 March (UTC))
Why do you want fewer results? --Pipetricker (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to exclude results like Martin Luther King, but now, as I scroll down the results, these do not apppear to turn up. Books in foreign languages do, however, turn up, and I think they should be excluded. Jonund (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jonund: As indicated in the sidebar, it is possible to filter the results by language. Jc86035 (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jonund:, cases like this are difficult because it is a common 2-word name who is popular. About the only way is to build a custom search that filters other known Martin Luthers. Because Internet Archive now uses an infinite scroll it's impractical to scroll to the end to see what might be there. The site Internet Archive Classic Search allows paged viewing to get deeper into the results. Looks like filtering out "luther king" helps a lot: 6,012. BTW I don't think we should filter English language because end-users can easily do that through the side bar. I've added this custom search to the template. -- GreenC 16:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Template merger discussion notice[edit]

There is a discussion about merging {{Yesno}}, {{If declined}}, and {{If affirmed}}. As this template group affects a very large number of pages, additional input is requested. Please join in the conversation at the TFD. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Template:Sec link/secure url[edit]

anyone know what is generating transclusions in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Sec link/secure url? it would be helpful to clear this from the database report if possible. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoa, something really weird was going on there that I don't exactly understand myself. I think I've fixed the problem, though. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ref toolbar[edit]

Since yesterday, the autofill function in the Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Using_refToolbar doesn't work for me at all. You know, the little magnifying glass. Any help? I use Chrome on a laptop. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Also reported at Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar#Autofill of citations with pings to maintainers. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

CSD categories[edit]

Hi! Can anyone explain (or even fix?) this: {{CSD-categories}} shows 7 candidates for speedy deletion as "Abandoned drafts/AfC submissions"; Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions is empty. It's been this way for several days at least. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

phab:T200402, phab:T202833, phab:T18036 - take your pick @Justlettersandnumbers: - category counts aren't reliable. — xaosflux Talk 19:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to have a vertical 'no wrap'[edit]

If you have something like

  • Header1
    • Item 1
    • Item 2
    • Item 3
    • Item 4
    • Item 5
  • Header 2
    • Item 1
    • Item 2
  • Header 3
    • Item 1
    • Item 2
    • Item 3

and you zoom at different levels, you will often have lists broken up over multiple columns. Is there a way to have everything on Header 1/Header 2/Header 3 kept together, much like {{nowrap}} prevents things from spilling over multiple lines, so you have something like

  • Header1
    • Item 1
    • Item 2
    • Item 3
    • Item 4
    • Item 5
  • Header 2
    • Item 1
    • Item 2
  • Header 3
    • Item 1
    • Item 2
    • Item 3


  • Header1
    • Item 1
    • Item 2
    • Item 3
    • Item 4
    • Item 5
  • Header 2
    • Item 1
    • Item 2
  • Header 3
    • Item 1
    • Item 2
    • Item 3

depending on your zoom level. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I think using Template:No col break should do it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to work. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it works in Chrome, but has some issues in Firefox. Does the nocolbreak class need tweaking in MediaWiki:Common.css? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for testing and feedback: Automated article section recommendations[edit]

The Wikimedia Research team is developing a new method for automatically recommending sections to add to stub articles. This method uses machine learning to suggest sections that could be added to an article, based on the sections that exist in other articles on similar topics.

We think this method could be useful for helping new editors find useful onboarding tasks to do. But before we build anything, we need to test the quality of the recommendations.

We are looking for experienced editors to evaluate these recommendations and provide feedback to help us improve them. We have built a testing tool that makes it easy to provide quick, survey-style feedback on the quality of the recommendations, and we are also interested in more detailed feedback on the project feedback talkpage.

If you are interested in giving us feedback, please get started by reading the instructions here and then start rating articles!

If you have questions about the project or more general feedback, you can reach us here.


Jonathan Morgan & Diego Saez-Trumper, Wikimedia Foundation Research

Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

BRFA for Xinbenlv_bot[edit]

Dear Technical Wikipedians


|I would like to ask for your opinion on a BRFA I am applying for m::Xinbenlv_bot.

(by the way, should I use {{rfc}} instead?)

Xinbenlv (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Behavior of settlement infobox[edit]

I noticed that the Template:Infobox settlement has two population fields: population_total, and population_density_km2. A person asked a related question at the help desk and when trying to answer the question, I noticed that these aren't text fields, and so you can't put a year in parenthesis ex: (2019) after the values, in case they are from different years. I tried to add citations after the numbers, and population_total allows it, but if I try to put a citation after population_density_km2, the field disappears. Is this the intended behavior? The article I tested this with is Jeju City if you want to see if you can duplicate this. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox settlement is active. You can ask questions there. Some numeric infobox parameters are used for calculations, e.g. conversion between km2 and sq mi, or density = population/area. This requires pure numbers (commas may be stripped but not always). If they are not numbers then calculations may be omitted or produce errors, or the parameter may be ignored. If population_density_km2 is set to auto then it's calculated from population_total and area_total_km2 so those parameters cannot have a reference in this case. population_note can be used for a reference. If the infobox cannot convert density between km2 and sq mi then it appears to omit the field. I suppose it could be coded to just output whatever was put in and hope it makes sense. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks PrimeHunter. Good explanation. 15:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)TimTempleton (talk) (cont)
@Timtempleton: This is why the |population_as_of= parameter was provided. There is also |population_footnotes= for the reference, and |population_note= should additional text be necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Some recent examples of fixing population problems can be seen at Template talk:Infobox settlement#Merge problems. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Bug in timestamps - messages from the future :D[edit]

See File:Future - Bug in MediaWiki timestamps.png Posts available at my talk page for review (perm diff). Lol. I have time-travelling students :D --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, this is not in the wikisource though. Are you using the Comments in local time-gadget ? —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
But the UTC time in the source is in the future. It's from a new user. I guess they haven't learned to sign with four ~~~~ which adds a time stamp. They probably wrote the time manually in their own time zone and copied "(UTC)" from another post without knowing the meaning. Maybe their teacher is to blame :D PrimeHunter (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Popular pages[edit]

The Template:Popular pages does not appear to be generating monthly reports on Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement in the Statistics section. User:Mr.Z-man does not appear to be active. Does this bot continue to operate? If yes, then how do I generate monthly reports. Mitchumch (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchumch: Mr.Z-man's system has been superseded by meta:Community Tech/Popular pages bot. I have added WikiProject Civil Rights Movement with Special:Diff/888984428. Note there is also toolforge:massviews, e.g. [5]. MusikAnimal talk 17:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Changes not being marked as read immediately[edit]

Seems to have started a few days ago. If I view a diff for a change made on whatever page, it still shows up as bold in my watchlist. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's taking 6 or 7 minutes for the read marker to be applied. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
See also § Green watchlist bullets do not turn blue. It's definitely been going on for days now. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Amaury: I find that if you remove the affected article from your watchlist temporarily (remove it, then add back ... with that "star" by the read, edit and view history tabs), it will clear the bold. Still annoying, but that's one workaround. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Further customizing comments in local time[edit]

Resolved: I cross-posted this at Wikipedia talk:Comments in Local Time‎ because I wasn't sure where I would get a response faster. I've gotten help there as well, and since that's the more appropriate venue, I'm going to close this to keep discussion to one place. Special thanks to PrimeHunter for responding here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I have the following in my vector.js: LocalComments = { dateDifference: false, dateFormat: 'mdy', timeFirst: false, twentyFourHours: false, dayOfWeek: false, dropDays: 0, dropMonths: 0 };

This changes signature display for me from 2:21 pm, 9 March 2019, Saturday (12 days ago) (UTC−8) to March 9, 2019, 2:21 pm (UTC−8). I want to further customize it to capitalize the AM/PM and remove the time zone (UTC -X), since I know that all times are in my time zone of Pacific. Is that possible? CC: Redrose64. They directed me here after I asked them on their talk page here here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The gadget uses MediaWiki:Gadget-CommentsInLocalTime.js which loads User:Gary/comments in local time.js. You could disable the gadget in preferences, copy the code to User:Amaury/comments in local time.js with a few changes, and load it with mw.loader.load(''); in your vector.js. It looks like the only needed changes are ' am' : ' pm' to ' AM' : ' PM', and remove two + ' (UTC' + utcOffset + ')'. You would not get future changes to the gadget. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Three minutes is extremely short to wait before cross-posting a non-urgent issue. You got the same code change in both places.[6] PrimeHunter (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Amaury: Yes, I suggested you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Comments in Local Time ... if the gadget's talk page isn't fruitful, you may get better luck posting at WP:VPT. Comments in Local Time isn't on my watchlist, so at first I didn't realise that you had posted in both places. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

New Tool: Whodunnit[edit]

I just threw together a git blame-like tool to help visualize who the text on a page came from. It could be useful for cleaning up after problematic editors, or just for the curious. It's still fairly WIP, but it works well enough. It's available at toolforge:whodunnit; the source is here. Gaelan 💬✏️ 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't we already have WP:WIKIBLAME for this? It's linked from each page history. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Redrose64, not quite the same thing—WikiBlame searches for a specific phrase, while my tool displays the text of the page, color-coded by the user that added it (and lets you hover over a piece of text to see the specific edit). Gaelan 💬✏️ 15:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Gaelan, See wikiwho. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Galobtter, I hadn’t seen that before, but it does look fairly similar. I’ll give it a try when I get a chance in a few hours. Gaelan 💬✏️ 16:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Generating a page log[edit]

What mechanism is responsible for generating a log entry for a given page or action? In particular: why does this command show an entry for the adding of an {{unreferenced}} tag whereas this command does not, even though both articles are tagged with an unreferenced template? More specifically, what would need to happen in order to cause the action of adding a {{PROD}} tag to an article to also generate a log entry for said action? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@John Cline: the logging of adding maintenance tags, deletion tags, etc is a part of the page curation system (see WP:NPR for more) while just adding the template manually (or semi automatically using twinkle) does not. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Those log entries are created by new page reviewers (and admins) using mw:Page Curation (Special:Log/pagetriage-curation, Special:Log/pagetriage-deletion). — JJMC89(T·C) 07:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@John Cline: See [7] for the code that actually adds the log entry --DannyS712 (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both for this information. I am not sure how to use it to reach the end I desire which is an effective method of ascertaining whether or not an article has ever survived the proposed deletion process, effectively retiring that process for the given topic. Right now the determination is entirely too cumbersome to glean yet there are situations where policy stipulations mandate that it must be considered in concert with other pending or contemplated actions. I would like to see this problem solved. Can it be resolved? Thanks again.--John Cline (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Addition of PROD probably should tag the edit as attempted proposed deletion, which is possible with an edit filter I believe. You will need to leave a request at WP:EFN to see. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively, it might be good if Twinkle did it at runtime and that would probably take care of the majority of PROD taggings. --Izno (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I would find it very helpful if there was a way of finding out a page's entire move history. Special:Log/move is tied to the title rather than the page itself, so it would only show moves that originated at the current title. -- King of ♠ 18:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. As it stands, an idea to incorperate a bot to assist with this is being pursued here. I recall seeing it mentioned that it would be helpful if evaluating iterations of the page being discussed, where it may have existed under a different title, was part of the bot tasking. King of Hearts it would be great if you look in on that discussion to help ensure that we endeavor a best effort in this regard; I know you have a surplus of insight regarding XfD. Anyone else interested in seeing this done right is not only welcome, as well, they are entreated to help, if they so kindly will. Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia pages with vi[edit]

What is the keystroke sequence to initiate editing a Wikipedia page with vi? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Michael Hardy: vi as in the *nix text editor? We don't have a 'edit in vi' mediawiki hotkey. You could install text editor extensions in to your browser. What browser are you using? — xaosflux Talk 20:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: You're mistaken. It exists. I know it exists because I've entered it accidentally several times. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Michael Hardy: lately? There used to be an option in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing for "use external editor", but that was removed 5+ years ago. See mw:Manual:External editors. This still required you to configure such an editor (such as vi) in your browser it didn't force a specific application on your computer to launch. You certainly could still have a browser extension for something similar. If anyone else has an idea, hopefully they will chime in and add or correct this below! — xaosflux Talk 21:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Within the past couple of days. And a bunch of other times within the past couple of years. One was maybe about a month ago. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
See also Help:Text editor support (though again, these all look like they are on your browser client). — xaosflux Talk 21:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I'm using Google Chrome. I can't say I've ever thought about browser extensions. Is there a quick way to tell whether I have such a thing? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I've never seen it but there is a browser extension known as "it's all text" which I believe can be configured to use whatever editor you like when normally a browser edit window would open. Google that phrase for information. I just copy from the browser edit window to my editor, then copy back if I want to post what I edited. Johnuniq (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (multiple) This feature was at Preferences → Editing, under the "Advanced options" heading, and was titled "Use external editor by default (for experts only, needs special settings on your computer)". It was always disabled for new and logged-out users, I'm guessing that Michael Hardy must have enabled it at some point after registering. It was removed from Preferences with the deployment of MediaWiki 1.22/wmf2 to English Wikipedia on 22 April 2013; AFAIK the removal of this preference also disabled it for all users who had previously enabled it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: @Johnuniq: I'm using a laptop that I bought in 2016. I've never configured it for anything like this nor enable any such features. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

To see whether any extensions are installed in Chrome: Click the three vertical dots at the top right, then "More tools" and "Extensions". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Michael Hardy: so just for reference, how do you launch vi normally? (Are you on a *nix variant machine)? Is it pure vi, or vim? — xaosflux Talk 01:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: This laptop runs MS Windows, and I've installed vim. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

ScienceDirect not correctly formatted by cite tool[edit]

Wikipedia:RefToolbar isn't interpreting ScienceDirect links correctly. For example, isn't being resolved or resolved to a "cite web" template when it should make "cite journal". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like something to bring to WT:RefToolbar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Relayed there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle (redux)[edit]

xaosflux Talk 23:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Numbers OK in "Desktop View" - but Very Low in "Mobile View"?[edit]

Question: Numbers added to the "Template:NFPA 704 diamond" are *entirely* OK in the usual "Desktop View" (see, for example, the noted diamond and added numbers in the "Ammonia" article) - HOWEVER - the added numbers are all *significantly lower* in the noted diamond in the "Mobile View" of the same "Ammonia" article (esp with Windows 10/Dell8930/Chrome-Firefox-Opera Browsers) - Thanking you in advance for your help with this - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

(Downgraded caps, in GF and in good understanding with Drbogdan). -DePiep (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Flammability code 1: Must be pre-heated before ignition can occur. Flash point over 93 °C (200 °F). E.g., canola oilHealth code 3: Short exposure could cause serious temporary or residual injury. E.g., chlorine gasReactivity code 0: Normally stable, even under fire exposure conditions, and is not reactive with water. E.g., liquid nitrogenSpecial hazards (white): no codeNFPA 704 four-colored diamond
I guess you mean it varies whether the numbers are centered in the squares or appear in the lower part. I see the same. Alignment like this can be tricky. I posted the example {{NFPA 704 diamond|F=1|H=3|R=0|S=-}} above. Special:ExpandTemplates shows the complicated code it produces with an image map:
<div style="width:100%; background:transparent;"><div id="container" style="margin:0 auto; width:82px; font-family:sans-serif"><div id="on_image_elements" class="nounderlines" style="background:transparent; float:left; font-size:20px; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; position:relative; height:80px; width:80px; padding:1px;">
<div id="diamond_image_and_mw_ImageMap" style="position:absolute; height:80px; width:80px;"><imagemap>
File:NFPA 704.svg|80px|alt=NFPA 704 four-colored diamond
poly 300   0 450 150 300 300 150 150 [[NFPA 704#Red|Flammability code 1: Must be pre-heated before ignition can occur. Flash point over 93 °C (200 °F). E.g., canola oil]]
poly 150 150 300 300 150 450   0 300 [[NFPA 704#Blue|Health code 3: Short exposure could cause serious temporary or residual injury. E.g., chlorine gas]]
poly 450 150 600 300 450 450 300 300 [[NFPA 704#Yellow|Reactivity code 0: Normally stable, even under fire exposure conditions, and is not reactive with water. E.g., liquid nitrogen]]
poly 300 300 450 450 300 600 150 450 [[NFPA 704#White|Special hazards (white): no code]]
desc none
</imagemap></div><div style="width:12px; text-align:center; position:absolute; top:12px; left:35px;">
[[NFPA 704#Red|<span style="color:black;" title="Flammability code 1: Must be pre-heated before ignition can occur. Flash point over 93 °C (200 °F). E.g., canola oil">1</span>]]</div><div style="width:13px; text-align:center; position:absolute; top:31px; left:15px;">
[[NFPA 704#Blue|<span style="color:black;" title="Health code 3: Short exposure could cause serious temporary or residual injury. E.g., chlorine gas">3</span>]]</div><div style="width:13px; text-align:center; position:absolute; top:31px; left:54px;">
[[NFPA 704#Yellow|<span style="color:black;" title="Reactivity code 0: Normally stable, even under fire exposure conditions, and is not reactive with water. E.g., liquid nitrogen">0</span>]]</div></div></div></div>
PrimeHunter (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Image shows the issue indeed. My thoughts: the creator (could be me ;-) ;-) ) used css styles that are discarded when in mobile view. -DePiep (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter and DePiep: Thanks for your comments - is there some easy way of centering the numbers in both, the "Desktop View" and "Mobile View"? - or maybe - it may be too difficult - and - perhaps best - to leave well enough alone at the moment - iac - Enjoy :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd say: rebuild css/style from scratch, but don't distrust <imagemap> for now. It's these pesky little 'style=""' details mobile view ignores, per my first suspicion. -DePiep (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)