Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   Miscellaneous  
Shortcuts:
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.


history revision statistics (alternate tool)[edit]

hi, ive posted on this topic here before Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_138#revision history statistics "link" on this matter (as well as the maintainers talk) however, (since it seems we are getting nowhere) after a month or more of the tool being down/not working...id like to know if there is an alternate tool (for revision history statistics) that gives the same information?,,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is, but it only works on the German Wikipedia for the time being. I'm working on making it work for the english wikipedia, and should have it up and running soon. I will post a link once I have it running.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
C678, WikiHistory is a poor and rudimentary replacement for the history revision statistics page. As a stopgap it is fine, better to have something than nothing, but work should continue to get the original tool up-and-running again. The process and communication regarding the status of this tool is subpar.--Wolbo (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Wolbo: You are free to continue work on getting the original tool up-and-running again - you can find the source code here. Other editors have been collaborating to that end at Wikipedia talk:XTools. In the meantime, C678 may dispense his time the way he find most beneficial. If you need anything beyond that you should instead direct your comments to the m:Community Tech team.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry Wolbo, but there is only so much I can do. For now this will have to do until we can get the code rewritten.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

cyberpowerChat:Online I saw the new link at Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa very impressive, congrats...(BTW will the individuals "bytes" be shown as before?) thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a different tool that we borrowed for now. We are still working on bringing the original code back up.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is a sample link to get to the substitute tool for articleinfo: it's called Wikihistory. I found that you have to capitalize the first letter of the article name, and substitute underscores '_' for blanks. http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/wikihistory/wh.php?page_title=Software_agent Thank you for your work, Cyberpower678. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Good to read that work is proceeding to bring the 'history revision statistics' back to live (that wasn't entirely clear from the communications I read on the subject). Opinions may differ but in my view both the information it contained as well as the way the information was displayed was excellent so hopefully the attempts to get it going again will be successfull.--Wolbo (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Private drafts?[edit]

Where are we at with private drafts? Tonight I found myself in need of such a thing (long unfinished reply to a contentious conversation, didn't want to save it in userspace, ended up saving it in an offline text editor). I found this discussion from a few years ago, which pointed to this bug, which looks like it got mired in a bunch of what-if navel gazing. Did this ever get enabled, and if so, how do I use it? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree that such a thing would be useful, and really a standard part of any modern web-based authoring interface. But, at the same time, the concerns raised in the bug are legitimate. The lack of eyeballs on anything "private" means it is easy for malicious users to abuse.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
How would we keep people from using this namespace to store all kinds of non-encyclopedic crap?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I think a client-based solution, as suggested in the bug, would be better than nothing, though.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
If I have a page that absolutely nobody else can see (and therefore there are no "eyeballs" on it), then how exactly would I go about using it for abuse? I'm trying to understand what "abuse" means when absolutely nobody except me can see the contents of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Nobody could see it without a password. People wishing to abuse the system could share passwords. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Sharing the password to my whole account? I don't think that's a realistic scenario. For that matter, there are already opportunities for doing that, at least for short messages. If I wanted to leave you a secret message in my account, I could type it into the sig field in prefs, and then give you the password. But I really can't imagine anyone wanting to go to that much trouble, when free private web boards are so easy to get. Or I could get a free e-mail account from any one of thousands of providers, and do the same thing by saving a draft of an e-mail message. This does not sound like a significant problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear: If you "can't imagine" any problems, is anything here preventing you from forwarding the request?--Anders Feder (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It depends on the exact implementation, but just consider resource consumption: some sad pubescent kid could probably find great pleasure in making a program that automatically created 700 yottabyte worth of drafts featuring ASCII art lolcats, just for the sake of crashing Wikimedia servers.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that $wgMaxArticleSize would prevent that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Really? Do you also have a constant to limit the number of drafts created by each user accounts? And once you have, do you also have a constant to limit the number of user accounts created by each physical person? If so, how do you plan on enforcing it?--Anders Feder (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
This particular possible issue aside, wouldn't this just make loads of work for the WMF, who would be the only ones able to patrol these pages for issues related to problematic content on their servers? Sam Walton (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Unless WhatamIdoing has some magic solution I am as of yet oblivious to.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The proposal is for a single draft (per account), not for an infinite number. There is already a system in place that limits the size of a page. There is already a system in place that limits the number of accounts you can create (per computer/IP address during a given time period). Your scenario is definitely implausible.
If nobody can see it except the one logged-in user, then why would the page need to be patrolled in the first place? This feels like "we have to make a note about what color the invisible unicorn is, because we check the color of every animal that can be seen in public!" Well, yes: we do try to check the content of every page that is visible to the public. But this one would not be visible to the public, so why should the visible-to-the-public rules need to be applied to an invisible-to-the-public page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
"The proposal is for a single draft (per account)". Lies. There is no such proposal. And if all concerns raised about the suggestion are "definitely implausible" anway, what are you waiting for? Why don't you go ahead and prod the engineering team to implement it instead of arguing with people here who have no power over the installation anyway?--Anders Feder (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Let me present a more focused scenario. Let's say that I'm drafting some sensitive non-article text; like a response to an RfA or Arbcom thing with lots of diffs. I'm in the middle of doing so and I need to step away for a few hours. I'm not done with my text but I want to save it because I'm putting a lot of effort into collecting and formatting all of those diffs and the power might go off or my browser might crash or whatever. And I don't want to save it in my sandbox because it's not cool to just post stuff concerning other users unless I'm sure it's ready for others to see. Today I have to copy that text to an offline text editor and copy it back later. What I'd like is just a button that says "save draft" and when I come back to the article, I can "resume draft". That's it. No namespaces, no unlimited storage of pictures of my board game collection.
Given that this has been a feature of practically all web-based content systems since forever (webmail, blog software, etc.) the objections presented so far are surprising. For example, I'm pretty sure a script kiddie wouldn't need the draft extension turned on if they wanted to DoS the system. In fact, this scenario happens rarely enough for me that I would be satisfied with being limited to a single draft with a fixed size limit if that addresses some of the concerns. Or a client-side solution, as was proposed. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
There isn't anything "surprising". Wikipedia isn't "all web-based content systems". It's a specific system working under its own constraints, and there is no two ways about having to address those constraints if you want to deploy this or any other new feature.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
What constraints do you have in mind? So far I've heard "nobody has created that yet" and "people might violate the terms of use by posting their account passwords on the web". Neither of these seem especially relevant to the question of whether it might be useful enough, for legitimate purposes, to be worth requesting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Who have questioned whether it "might be useful enough"? Do you also see the exact words "I actually agree that such a thing would be useful" above or are they something I am imagining?--Anders Feder (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Orange Suede Sofa: You mention "drafting some sensitive non-article text; like a response to an ... Arbcom thing with lots of diffs" - there was a recent arbcom case where the accused was doing precisely that. It didn't go down at all well. You may notice that they haven't posted to this page for over a month now. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Redrose, this is confusing. The editor can't have been accused of "doing precisely that", because "precisely that" is technologically impossible at this point in time. Was the editor accused of drafting a reply in public, i.e., precisely the thing Orange Suede Sofa wants to avoid? Or of drafting the reply offline (which nobody has any business caring about)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
By "doing precisely that" I mean that they were drafting their replies in userspace; that user subpage was quite lengthy, and contained a number of allegations against another Wikipedian which were sufficiently libellous for them to be removed and revdelled very quickly, and not long after were oversighted. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like an argument in favor of having a private space for such efforts. Private notes, unseen by anyone else are never libel. (Libel requires publication.) With luck, the editor would have kept editing until the contents were legal; if not, then it would be no worse than what happened. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose having pages that only one editor could see. At the very least, there should be no spaces in the project that can not be seen by admins (who can see, for example, deleted page content and redacted revisions). Any editor who wants to draft things in a private space can already do it offwiki. bd2412 T 19:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a type of draft that is semi-private. It is a draft in user space. Anyone can see it, but is unlikely to see it unless they either search for it or are directed to it. For composing something off-line that is completely private, why not just use a word processor or text editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
"Anybody in the entire world can read this" is what we call "not at all private". Security through obscurity is no security at all.
BD2412, I'd be interested in knowing why it's a problem to have a page that only the logged-in editor can see. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
First, I consider it a WP:NOT problem. The policy says that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service, which is what an option like this could easily become. Unsavory characters could even use such a capacity as a space to communicate criminal plans. bd2412 T 19:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Definition from the article: "A web hosting service is a type of Internet hosting service that allows individuals and organizations to make their website accessible via the World Wide Web." That pretty much rules out a page that nobody else can see. Also, I'm not sure how one "communicates" anything, criminal or otherwise, when nobody else can see it. I asked why it's a problem to have a page that only the logged-in editor can see. You have replied with a concern that it could be bad if other people could see it. I agree, but that's not an answer to my question. What is the inherent problem in having a small page of text that only one person can look at? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
First, it's not within Wikipedia's mission, so not worth the time doing the programming needed to create it. Second, people wanting to use this for illicit communication would only need to share the password with each other. Third, "a small page of text"? How small? How do we know how small it is, if it can't be looked at? Will the page history be publicly viewable? bd2412 T 22:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Because there's already a limit on page sizes. It's immediately enforced by software, so no human needs to look at any page to know that it's being done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Copying and pasting only takes a few extra seconds if your favorite text editor is decent. If you really can't afford waiting those seconds, then why not use a pastebin? Esquivalience t 00:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Among other problems: You might not be at your usual computer, or you might be planning to finish it elsewhere (e.g., you start at work and you finish at home). Saving on your computer doesn't so well work if your access is via an internet cafe or a borrowed computer. Pastebins aren't necessarily private.[1] Copying and pasting on mobile and tablet devices is often difficult. Text editors have a tendency to create curly quotes, which mean that when you wanted italics, you end up with ‘’a mess‘’ instead. And that's just off the top of my head; other people could presumably add to this list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Isn't the wiki markup source code open source? As far as I know, anyone can download it and create their own wiki public or private. If you really want a draft space with wiki markup, that's an option. bd2412 T 22:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    Word processors have a tendency to create curly quotes. Text editors normally do what they're told. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like my original question has been answered. I appreciate the responses. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, they didn't answer your question. They raised some valid concerns. Given, for example, that we had one draft page, limited to, say 64k or 128k, and viewable by admins most of those concerns would vanish. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

Moving over talk page[edit]

Apologies if this has been covered before, but I couldn't find anything in the archives. Currently when you move a page (as an admin) if the target location has a non-negligible history (i.e. anything more than a single edit redirecting to the page you're moving) you get a really helpful screen that tells you the target has history, gives a link to that history and then gives you a tick box to delete that page so you can proceed with the move if you want. The problem is that often the talk page will also have a non-negligible history, but you don't get a prompt or any real warning for this. Once the move is completed there is a line at the bottom of the page that tells you whether moving the talk page (and any archives) was successful or not, but it's very easy to miss. So my question is, would it be feasible to somehow have the move feature detect when, if the "move accompanying talk page" box is ticked, the talk page that is being moved to has a non-negligible history and give you a tick box option to delete it all in the same process? If that is too difficult or complicated, would it at least be possible to make the notice somehow more prominent (bigger and in red, say?) when moving the talk page is unsuccessful? Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? Jenks24 (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes but I think it's a developer job to do it properly. Possibly you could use javascript to suppress the "real" move tab and create a "fake" one, and Lua to do the extra checks, but it would be better to make it a feature IMHO. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC).
Hey Rich, many thanks for responding. I agree that a developer making this a site-wide feature, rather than just a personal hack for me, would be the optimal outcome. The following might be a silly question, but how do I actually contact the developer team with a suggestion like this? Jenks24 (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Through the Phabricator. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
+1. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC).
Thank you both. This has prompted me to finally sign up for Phabricator (can't remember if I had an account for the old one, whatever that was called). Turns out this has been a bug since 2007 [2]. I added a comment to it, but no idea if that will do anything. Jenks24 (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image/text justification problem[edit]

I don't know when it exactly happened, I can't find the code where it happened. So did some css or module get updated, because over the past month or so I've constantly ran in to text and image justification problems. What used to be center justified is now left justified. Here's four examples I could find. I know I had to add some code to one template to fix it on that particular one. Did someone break something? TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 06:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@CR90:, that album is private. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 07:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@TheDJ: Sorry about that, it's fixed now. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 07:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@TrueCRaysball: it is still private :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Infobox alignment was changed in [3], discussed at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Alignment of infobox labels. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@TrueCRaysball: It's private for me too. It also takes ages to "leave" that page to come back here, I suspect a high level of javascript and advertising. If what you've posted there are screenshots, it's better to WP:WPSHOT than use an external service. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Edgars2007 and @Redrose64: I tried redoing the privacy settings again. I used an external service because my screenshot has non-free logos in them to illustrate the point and I can't upload that to Commons. Should be fixed now. If it comes to it, I'll link each individually. @PrimeHunter: So IE9 wasn't interpreting code correctly so lets break the tables for everyone who updates their browser. Makes perfect sense. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I just finished update the template code for those infoboxes to fix their alignment. There are others, I'm sure, still affected by this. Wouldn't it have been easier to to just add text-align:inherit; to MediaWiki:Common.css rather than moving that code like what happened? TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 20:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I did finally get through to that photobucket page - which took over a minute to load because the advertising included a video (of a potter's wheel, for some reason) which soaked up all the CPU cycles and caused the mouse and keyboard to stop responding - and then it took a further three mins to get out again and get to this edit screen, most of which was Windows cleaning up its cache, swapfile etc. to make space for Wikipedia's javascript to load again. If the logos are not relevant to the problem (they probably aren't, as it's about text alignment) crop them off or paint them out. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
One compound word: AdBlock. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 23:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
For me (XP and latest Firefox) AdBlock isn't working. But OK, I understand that it's offtopic, so here it's just a note, that AdBlock doesn't work for everybody. If you have some suggestions (except upgrading the system :) ), then you're welcome to my talkpage. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia File Upload Wizard (Fair use files)[edit]

I would like to ask two questions about the Wizard, specifically the non-free files form, and more specifically: Step 3 > “This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use.” > “This is an historic portrait of a person no longer alive.

  • A) Why am I able to confirm that “the image will be shown as a primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the person in question” by simply ticking a box, but I have to write a text “explaining” that “a free alternative to this image cannot be found”, “our use of the file will not harm any commercial opportunities of its owner” and “the use of this file will be minimal”? The third one, especially, could be very easily replaced by a box-to-tick.
  • Β) Why is the Wizard sequence Free alternative-Commercial opportunities-Minimal use while the Non-free rationale template sequence is Free alternative-Minimal use-Commercial opportunities?

Thank you in advance.

--The Traditionalist (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you can always write "✔" in the text box. But I think our fair use policy could do with a slightly more liberal overhaul. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC).
I always add the same text. It looks, however, like an attempt to train editors to write creatively, which would be laughable
Could a template editor fix what I address at my question B)? It is most likely a mistake.--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Search page meddling[edit]

Recently the Wiki search page has been spoilt, by adding a migraine headache in the search box and a promiscuous drop down menu. I've tried to stop it by altering the settings in Preferences to no avail, can anyone help please.Keith-264 (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Which skin are you using? (It seems relatively unchanged to me, though I see from comments above it has some regex ability.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC).
Monobook ([4])Keith-264 (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh you mean the search box? Yes that dropdown that hides the search key is sometimes irritating, but also sometimes useful. The Migraine - maybe someone can offer some css to turn that off? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC).
The post is about the big search box at Special:Search and not the smaller box on all pages. In Firefox, each time I type a character in the big box I briefly see annoying flickering tilted grey lines in the whole box. The drop-down with search suggestions is bigger and more attention seeking than for the small box, and it covers "Multimedia Everything Advanced" so I have to click somewhere else on the page before I can use those options. "Disable the suggestions dropdown-lists of the search fields" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets works on the small box but not the big. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not the little one at the side of the article page (that's annoying enough) but the big one on the page that the search goes to if there isn't an obvious wikipage. The drop down is never useful and the pattern in the box comes from the imagination of a !"£$%^&*(). Don't the people who do these things ever ask first?Keith-264 (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You can use...

#searchText.oo-ui-pendingElement-pending input {
    background-image: none;
}

...to hide the scrolling stripes of doom, and...

#searchText > div {
    display: none;
}

...to hide the glamorous dropdown. Alakzi (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but where do I put them....Keith-264 (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
your CSS. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know I had one, it seems to be working.Keith-264 (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there any way to disable this feature altogether? For eg. if I intend to search in Special:Search for Lorem, it fills in Lorem Ipsum by default when I press the Enter key to search. I'd have to press the Tab key and then the Enter key every time to get the desired search query which is really cumbersome. NQ-Alt (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't suppose Wiki will force anyone who changes it to add a "change it back" button to every change? That would be useful.Keith-264 (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Tool for fixing malformed wikilinks[edit]

Is there a tool that can quickly convert multiple instances of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_title Article title] to proper wikilinks? (Asking again here as I got no joy at the HD.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess WP:AWB could do it, but I just resort to doing it manually - it's a pet peeve of mine too (among many).--ukexpat (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like user:js/urldecoder does what you want. You could also use the find and replace tool on the right side of the Advanced menu of the edit toolbar: paste \[((?:https?:)?\/\/en\.wikipedia\.org\/wiki\/.+?) (.+?)\] into the search box and {{subst:u2w|1=$1|2=$2}} into the replace box, and check "Treat search string as a regular expression", and click "Replace all". This replaces all external Wikipedia links with {{subst:urltowiki}}, which converts them on page save. /~huesatlum/ 14:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I've installed and tested urldecoder - like it's "one click and it's done" operation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
At one time it was possible to use Special:LinkSearch and enter en.wikipedia.org - that facility was removed last year. LinkSearch has recently been altered again, so that it assumes http:// unless you explicitly specify https:// which means that when hunting down spam links, you now need to do twice as many searches as you used to. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

Tech News: 2015-31[edit]

15:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Single characters[edit]

Why do the history pages for pages with only a single character in them show as "index" in the browser history? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be an odd browser feature. Which url did you visit, what is the browser, exactly what does it say in the browser history, and what does it say for a page with more characters like Example? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:13, 27 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 https://en.wikipedia.org 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)

Issues over the past few days[edit]

  • Session data seems to be lost almost every edit.
  • Saving often displays the pre-edited version of the page. This was almost unheard of previously.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

  • In regards to the Saving, I'm finding it 100% of the time the last few days. I have to do a "refresh" after saving to see the changes.
  • Loss of session data happens sporadically with me, but not all the time.
— Maile (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Rich Farmbrough: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 137#"Loss of session data" error on Save page and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 137#Post not showing up immediately respectively. Other threads exist. When are you next in Oxford? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
With a little luck and a following wind, August. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC).
Session data lost: phab:T102199. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

stats.grok.se broken yet again?[edit]

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: nanis@scripps.edu' 
        connection = mwclient.Site(('https', settings.BASE_SITE),clients_useragent=useragent) 
        connection.login(self.username, self.password) 
        return connection 
utf-8 is set like:
 self.wikitext().encode('utf-8')
My os is Ubuntu 14.04. Thanks,Julialturner (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Default edit summary[edit]

Is it possible with js or css code in my personal js/css subpage to add some default edit summary for edits? &summary= isn't answer this time, because i'm using regular wikilinks, not URLs. Sometimes I'm too lazy to add edit summary if I'm making some mass edits to many pages where I'm doing the same thing, like adding template, DEFAULTSORT etc. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You could use a bookmarklet: javascript:document.getElementById("wpSummary").value = "New summary"; void(0);. Alakzi (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I assume you tested that. Not bad, especially if your browser supports buttons on a bookmark toolbar (do they all?). You would still have to remember to click the button, but it would be slightly better than a copy-and-paste from an open Notepad window. Little use for less tech-savvy editors, unless there was a page with well-written usage instructions for each of the major browsers. Ideal solution: A check box at the bottom of the edit window, "Save edit summary", but I won't hold my breath on that one. ―Mandruss  11:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, bookmarklet does the job well. Thanks! But if that code can be modified to put it here, then I would love it more, as Mandruss said - still have to remember to click the button. 👍 Like the idea about check box :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
You can do it like that:
$(function() {
	$( "#wpSummary" ).val( "New summary" );
});
The summary will be filled each time the page is loaded. Darkdadaah (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Works good. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I use a free programme called AutoHotKey to create macros, so I can type any regularly-used string with just three keystrokes. I wrote a blog post explaining how. I reserve the combination AA for temporary strings. I also take advantage of my browser (Firefox)'s autocomplete function. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
This one looks interesting, thanks! --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Equazcion/CustomSummaryPresets allows you to define custom edit summaries, which appear in a drop-down menu below the edit summary line. - Evad37 [talk] 01:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

edit count language[edit]

When I go to my user contributions and I select Edit Count I see that that my edits are broken down according to type of namespace. (Talk, User space, ect.) The top category, which should be mainspace, or Articles, or something like that, displays these foreign (perhaps Korean) symbols: 일반 문서. What's wrong? -- Naytz (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a known bug in XTools (or some external service it relies upon). See Wikipedia talk:XTools#Label for article namespace in edit counter is in Korean.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Me too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
User talk:MusikAnimal/Archive 16#anomoly > tools.wmflabs.org and https://github.com/x-Tools/xtools/issues/60 NQ-Alt (talk) 20:33, 28 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 [12] 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).

Authorlinking in German template[edit]

I would like to introduce authorlinks into citations in Biber-Danube interglacial and Biber glaciation to the authors Lorraine Lisiecki and Maureen Raymo. Unfortunately, the citations use a template "literatur" which appears to be German and doesn't seem to accept "authorlink=". Any help gratefully received. DuncanHill (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

a) introduced a new parameter |Authorlink= (i know it's not German), so you can use it
b) probably nobody would blame you, if you use wikilinks in the |Autor=, because I see, that there are multiple persons
c) General question for everyone - why not use {{cite book}} (which is based on Lua) as metatemplate for {{Literatur}}? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I've gone for wikilinking in the "Autor" field, together with a plea in the edit summary. DuncanHill (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
T:Literatur is not a CS1 template directly though it does use Citation/core which relies on the same Module:Citation as CS1. It is a copy last I checked for the German template of the same name. In general, where it is found in an article it should be replaced with the appropriate CS1 template (IMO) since its only use is in copying/transwiking an article from German to English. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I concur with regards to replacement. {{Literatur}} does not use Module:Citation (nothing does, I think), rather, {{Literatur}} uses {{citation/core}} which used to support both Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 until both of those migrated to Module:Citation/CS1.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

citedoi templates[edit]

Some references call a "citedoi" template, and do not seem to have a way of authorlinking. Is there any way in which the authors of a work cited in this way can be linked? An example would be the ref name=" LisieckiRaymo" in the article Pastonian Stage. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Click the Edit tab to see a list of transcluded templates at the bottom of the edit window. Pastonian Stage has the code {{Cite doi|10.1029.2F2004PA001071}} which transcludes Template:Cite doi/10.1029.2F2004PA001071. You can manully edit that page. It uses Template:Cite journal which has documentation for making author links. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I had never noticed the list of templates at the bottom, probably because it was collapsed! Thanks, hopefully will be able to manage from here on. DuncanHill (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Again thanks - was much simpler than I had feared! I shall endeavour to remember for future reference. DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
DuncanHill, please keep asking questions. We'd rather have you productive than stuck on something, especially when we can answer your questions quickly. You can also post at WP:Help desk if you have less-technical questions about editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 29 July 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard ? 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 ([13]) 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)
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: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk/Xxxx" or "https://en.wikipedia.org/wikitalk/Xxxx" 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: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Foo"

If, however, the page has a title starting say with: "Category:Foo" the associated talk page is assigned its address in the format: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Foo"

Would it be possible/practical to change talk page address formatting to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk/Xxxx" for article talk pages and, for instance, "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk/Category:Foo" for category talk pages. I would also be interested to know how possible it might be to use addresses such as "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/category/Foo" and "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/talk/category/Foo" 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: site:www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk/ 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt, 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. --108.38.204.15 (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 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mobile_Gateway/Mobile_homepage_formatting --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

Hi,
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)

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)