Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   Miscellaneous  
The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia. Bug reports and feature requests should be made in Phabricator (see how to report a bug). Bugs with security implications should be reported differently (see how to report security bugs).

Newcomers to the technical village pump are encouraged to read these guidelines prior to posting here. Questions about MediaWiki in general should be posted at the MediaWiki support desk.

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

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

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 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. Thank you for your work, Cyberpower678. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

edit button not showing in mobile wikipedia[edit]

I think it's been a month since I have been seeing this kind of problem with mobile wikipedia version. I have seen seen this kind of problem in the beginning of this year but all went normal after some time but now the problem is as it is for about a month.

Now the problem is that the edit button (that looks like a pencil) is not coming on any mobile Wikipedia page (though the same thing is not happening in desktop mode). I am logged in with Wikipedia and I tried clearing cache but all was useless. Then I checked the same thing on other browsers n the same thing happened again on ucmini and ucbrowser and chrome also. After this I faced the same problem with another phone.

I think it's a bug in Wikipedia s mobile site. (Anyone else is facing the same problem??)

Plz Help!! -- चक्रपाणी (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@चक्रपाणी: Are you using mobile interface beta? Check your settings. That might affect it. --Thnidu (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, what kind of browser are you using when accessing the mobile website... Perhaps it doesn't support SVG or something, causing the images not to show ? —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Surely SVG images are always converted to PNG server-side, because not all browsers support them? For example, this image Example.svg appears in the <img /> tag as src="//" --Redrose64 (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The pencil icon that forms the "edit" links in the mobile skin is actually directly shown as an SVG for me (Chrome). It is added by the following CSS rule, which seems to be added to the page using JavaScript (it is not visible using "View source", only with the "Inspect element" tool):
.mw-ui-icon-edit-enabled:before {
  background-image: url(//* ... */);
  background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url(data:image/svg+xml,/* ... */);
  background-image: linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url(data:image/svg+xml,/* ... */);
  background-image: -o-linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url(//* ... */);
I'm guessing the background-image property is set to four different values to let it fall back to the last working one if any variation is not supported by the used browser. An SVG file with code directly embedded on the page (replaced with a comment here) is used in two cases, and a PNG version from a different page in the other two. SiBr4 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Please let me know your device, operating system and browser (including version) that you are using and I will look into this. Jdlrobson (talk) 00:18, 26 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)

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)
  • 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).

Private incident reporting and tracking system for admins[edit]

First of all ANI/Incidents is currently the most frequently edited page. Second of all, it seems that it's possible to report things privately to arbcom, but not to the administrators as a whole. There's a number of pros and cons to having a private means to report incidents to administrators. There's two potential approaches, one is all admins having access to this tool, a second is only admins IDed to WMF have access.


  1. Good for shy editors who aren't comfortable drawing attention to themselves.
  2. Good for issues that editors might be uncomfortable bringing up in public, such as sexual harassment.
  3. Would make ANI/Incidents less of a huge mess.
  4. Would reduce burden on arbcom potentially, as minor issues regarding some privacy wouldn't have to go through them.
  5. Less drama, canvassing opportunities, etc.
  6. Might be good for other language wikis, that may have different cultures regarding reporting incidents.
  7. Most other websites have a means to privately report issues to administrators, so it's what many people are used to.
  8. Might make the lives of admins easier, as a wiki is not an ideal issue tracking system.


  1. Potential legal issues if admins not identified to WMF have access. Editors might assume issues reported privately to administrators is private information, even though such information is not legally.
  2. Potential off site drama with wp admins with ill intent leaking private incident reports.
  3. Potential for misuse (like any new tool).
  4. Might make ANI/Incidents (which this would certainly not replace) get less admin attention.

Personally I'd support such a tool, as it would be tremendously helpful to editors who might have difficulty "raising their voice" so to speak. --ScWizard (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Having some concern about such a tool attracting a lot of reports that don't need to be private or don't need to be targeted at administrators. That's my expectation based on reports I handle on other websites, for the record. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
A report that doesn't need to be private, but also doesn't need to be public, would be more quickly resolved through a proper incident tracking system than through a wiki, I think. As for reports that don't need to be targeted at admins, you're right that there are likely to be reports in the fashion of "this article is wrong!!!" by individuals who are completely unfamiliar with wikipedia. However such a report might give the wiki an opportunity to engage people who wouldn't think of editing the wiki otherwise. --ScWizard (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
There are experienced editors who are active on ANI but who are not administrators. Any change that hides the sort of cases we see on ANI from those editors denies Wikipedia a useful tool for dealing with abuse. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I think having one "court" that can work semi-privately is enough (Arbcom). Don't need more WP:CABAL accusations. --NeilN talk to me 20:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

French Wikipedia has Global contributions Special page[edit]

I just noticed that French Wikipedia has the Special:CentralAuth tool which allows you to query user contributions and rights across all Wikimedia Projects. See for example: . Is there a reason we don't have this implemented? Can we implement it? It would be insanely useful for things like whether to ping someone else on another wiki, checking whether to give editors rights or when blocking editors, for WP:The Wikipedia Library screening if editors have sufficient contributions to qualify for partnerships access, etc. I can't think of a reason not to have it enabled. Sadads (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

We have as well, actually. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
We link to it on "accounts" at the bottom right of user contributions, at least if you have either the default English or British English as interface language at Special:Preferences. The link is made by MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer. Does the French Wikipedia link to it in a place you think we also should? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
To be precise the one named "accounts" at bottom right of contribs is m:Special:CentralAuth/Sadads which goes through meta:. But the action is the same as Special:CentralAuth/Sadads on en.wp and fr:Special:CentralAuth/Sadads on fr.wp. Any differences that you may see are down to your user settings - such as interface language, time zone or skin. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, we link the meta version on user contributions. It gives the same for most accounts. Special:CentralAuth/Thisfeelsawesome versus m:Special:CentralAuth/Thisfeelsawesome shows an example where meta adds global account changes. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind on not having it, I must have had a typo in trying to find it. However, we don't link it anywhere obvious (for example at the top of Special:Contributions/Sadads). It seems silly to be sending users to meta, without a significant difference (its probably really disorienting for English only contributors). Moreover, I seem to remember a ton of different templates linking to this tool, which is always clunky and slow, but not to CentralAuth. Could we add it to the top of Special:Contributions? And I didn't even know that box was at the bottom of Special:Contributions. Is there a way we could move that up the page, make it discover-able --- it seems like a lot of valuable information that shouldn't be hidden at the bottom of the page (maybe a side bar on the right?). French Wikipedia has it in a bunch of different default user templates. I will try to find some of the templates (like Template:User8 where we could make Special:CentralAuth more visible, instead of sending users to an outside tool), Sadads (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Based on uselang=qqx an alternative placement on user contributions would be the currently blank MediaWiki:Contributions-summary which is displayed above the "Search for contributions" box at Special:Contributions/Sadads. That is probably too prominent. MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-explain is displayed inside the "Search for contributions" box but that place should probably only be used for a help link like now, or information about the fields in the box. The names "Contributions-summary" and "Sp-contributions-explain" also hint that the messages aren't intended for something like this. The French Wikipedia [2] uses MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer at the bottom like us. I think that is the best. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Sadads: The reason for linking to Meta's version of Special:CentralAuth instead of ours is that only Meta's version shows log entries for global account actions (like locking). Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Sadads, for your purposes, I think that you will benefit from adding some popular user scripts to your account. Here's my list of recommendations, complete with the code you need to add them to your .js file:

// Gives some useful links on user, user talk, and user contribution pages
// by [[m:user:Hoo man]] <>
if(typeof(usefulLinksConfig) == 'undefined') usefulLinksConfig = {};
usefulLinksConfig.toolLinkMethod = 'p-cactions';
// Useful script to tell if a user is currently blocked, by striking out the username
// [[File:userinfo.js]]

Just paste that into m:User:Sadads/global.js and reload the page to run it. You will then have quick access to links on all user pages via the "More" dropdown menu that normally houses only "Move" (CentralAuth will be listed as "CA"), a visible indicator if any person is blocked (on any page, every time the user page is linked), and a list of user rights, account age, number of edits, and how recently the editor has edited on all user pages, immediately underneath the page title. Also, if you add it to your global.js page at Meta, it should work on all the Wikipedias. That should save you a bit of time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request not working[edit]

The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request page doesn't work for me. Previously I had that problem only with Firefox, but on my new computer this page doesn't work with Internet Explorer either. At the time I posted at Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_20#Technical_problem, and was advised to seek help here. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request requires JavaScript in your browser. The content is made by MediaWiki:Gadget-DRN-wizard.js which is enabled by default as "Form for filing disputes at the dispute resolution noticeboard" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It's also enabled for unregistered users. If your browser doesn't have JavaScript or JavaScript is disabled then you see a blank page like in the mobile version PrimeHunter (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
But I do have Java 8 Update 51 installed on my computer. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Java and JavaScript are unrelated (yes, the similar names are confusing, not our fault). JavaScript comes with the browser but may be disabled. Do you have a [show]/[hide] to the right of "Contents" at #toc? That also requires JavaScript. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I do have the [hide] option next to the TOC. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Debresser: Can you check if the "Form for filing disputes at the dispute resolution noticeboard" option is enabled in your preferences under gadgets? - NQ (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't, and now that I checked it, it works. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Tag log[edit]

Why is the tag log empty? Will it ever become nonempty? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The associated feature was not popular at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 136#Edit Tags. The English Wikipedia has no tags which can be manually added or removed, but I think admins could create such tags. The tag log would show when users added or removed the tags. Special:Log/tag is empty but fr:Special:Log/tag is not. French history pages like [3] have buttons saying "Edit tags of selected revisions". Apparently the only such tag they currently have is called "Test balise" which means Test tag. I don't know whether they use it for anything other than just testing the feature. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
MediaWiki talk:Tag-OneClickArchiver#Protected edit request on 11 May 2015 was an RfC to see if there was consensus to set up tags for a particular userscript. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The obtrusive UI issue should be addressed by [4], although we could also tweak common.css/js. Cenarium (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Move shown twice[edit]

Why is Michael Hardy's move from Uncorrelated to Uncorrelated random variables shown twice in the move log? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The log is [5]. The page history of the target [6] also shows it twice, with consecutive page revisions 669814688 and 669814689. I guess it's just a glitch. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
"Just a glitch" is usually what comes back in a few months or years as "OMG, I wish we'd fixed that problem when we first noticed a symptom. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

DIFF highlighting glitches ?[edit]

Not sure if this is a glitch or not. My personal opinion is that this is a logic flaw in the diff engine.


Adding an inline citation immediately after an existing inline citation results in a flawed diff highlight as follows:


  • article text blah blah.<ref>{{cite ...|ref=ALPHA}}</ref>


  • article text blah blah.<ref>{{cite ...|ref=ALPHA}}</ref><ref>{{cite ...|ref=OMEGA}}</ref>


  • article text blah blah.<ref>{{cite ...|ref=ALPHA}}</ref><ref>{{cite ...|ref=OMEGA}}</ref>


  • article text blah blah.<ref>{{cite ...|ref=ALPHA}}</ref><ref>{{cite ...|ref=OMEGA}}</ref>

ALTERNATELY -- This is also true if you insert a new citation in the middle of multiple existing citations:

  • article text blah blah.<ref>{{cite ...|ref=ALPHA}}</ref><ref>{{cite ...|ref=OMEGA}}</ref><ref>{{cite ...|ref=DELTA}}</ref>

HOWEVER -- The diff highlighting is correct if you insert the new citation BEFORE any existing citation(s).

  • article text blah blah.<ref>{{cite ...|ref=OMEGA}}</ref><ref>{{cite ...|ref=ALPHA}}</ref>

Could this be some issue with giving parse priority to template tags (curly braces) maybe ? (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Diff isn't an exact science, and in my experience Wikipedia's implementation frequently highlights unintuitively. I wouldn't hold much hope that this can be resolved, except by grafting on some ugly hack, which probably would not be well-received by the developers.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Registered users can enable wikEdDiff at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. wikEdDiff often gives a better diff when the default diff is poor. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe that the diff feature starts at the right-hand end of the line and works towards the left. So when adding a <ref>...</ref> after one that is already there, the diff feature notices that each line ends with a </ref> which is considered to match. Then as it works its way to the left, it will come across another </ref> on the later version which is considered not to match, so it gets the highlight. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I actually can't see what you mean in the above example. A smarter diff would certainly recognise where delimiters package entities and match for example "<<bar>> " instead of "bar>> <<" in the following, assuming that "<<bar >>" had been inserted.
foo <<bar>> <<baz>>
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

Description of articles traffic rankings[edit]

I would just like to draw Wikipedians attention to the way the page view statistics are presented. In each and every Wikipedia page one would click 'View history', then 'Page view statistics' and he will get the statistics page. Now, the headline reads - '(Wikipedia page) has been viewed xxxxxx times in the last 30 days. (and, for 10,000 Wikipedia pages, also - ) This article ranked xxx in traffic on'. One may get the wrong impression that the ranking is an all time one. As I understand it, the ranking is merely the page's rating for the month of March 2014 (see the figures here). This can be a bit misleading.

Thanks a lot in advance for your help -- Limitless undying love (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the rank is only for March 2014, for example for which disappeared that month and peaked in page views there. is made and controlled by a single volunteer editor who can be contacted at User talk:Henrik but hasn't edited since August 2014. The editors of the English Wikipedia have decided to link the tool in page histories but it's not an "official" tool run by the Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Database problem[edit]


A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.

    Function: IndexPager::buildQueryInfo (AbuseFilterPager)
    Error: 2013 Lost connection to MySQL server during query (

This has been unavailable, at least to me, for some time.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC).

We're looking into this in the #wikimedia-operations channel. Legoktm (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Should be fixed now, the problematic change was reverted. Legoktm (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC).

Proposal to create PNG thumbnails of static GIF images[edit]

The thumbnail of this gif is of really bad quality.
How a PNG thumb of this GIF would look like

There is a proposal at the Commons Village Pump requesting feedback about the thumbnails of static GIF images: It states that static GIF files should have their thumbnails created in PNG. The advantages of PNG over GIF would be visible especially with GIF images using an alpha channel. (compare the thumbnails on the side)

This change would affect all wikis, so if you support/oppose or want to give general feedback/concerns, please post them to the proposal page. Thank you. --McZusatz (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A tool for dimming references in diffs?[edit]

Hi there, is anyone aware of any tool (or possibly willing to make one) that would dim/remove references from view upon command while looking at a diff?

In these edits I'm interested in seeing what the net change to the prose was in the big blue block, but with all the long references, it's difficult to read the prose and see what changed. I'm thinking of something like WikEdDiff that, with a press of a button, would turn anything between <ref></ref> tags light gray or something. Naturally this would have no effect on the article. It would only affect what a user sees on their screen. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Was thinking about related script (feel free to move this to new section). When somebody moves a text lower for some rows and makes some other changes in that text, in diff window you can't see what really has been done in that text, because it only shows you that whole paragraph or so has been moved somewhere else (specifically, some rows up or down). I think I'm not the only one, who would like to know, what else has been done in that edit. I could really live with the fact, that I can't see in diff window, that text has been moved, just show me the real changes in the text. Mission impossible (such script)? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Edgars2007: wikEdDiff, linked above by Cyphoidbomb, is the solution to that problem. ―Mandruss  10:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! It looks like we will be good friends with wikEdDiff :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:LDR is you friend. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

Page number weirdness[edit]

Check out Realm of Impossibility, look especially at the references. Although it seems I am using the same format for the cite tags throughout, some of them render the pages as if they are the "issues", with a colon. Any ideas? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You aren't exactly using the same format throughout. The two "colon-nized" citations are {{cite journal}} while the two that display the "p."-style are {{cite news}}.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: Yes, in a ref constructed as
{{cite journal |url= |title=Interview: Mike Edwards |journal=ROM Magazine |date=February/March 1984 |page=12 |first=Peter |last=Ellison}}
which displays as
Ellison, Peter (February/March 1984). "Interview: Mike Edwards". ROM Magazine: 12.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
the template is {{cite journal}}, which for as long as I can remember (six years) has never displayed "p." or similar before page numbers. Note that issue numbers differ from page numbers in that they get parentheses -
{{cite journal |url= |title=Interview: Mike Edwards |journal=ROM Magazine |date=February/March 1984 |page=12 |first=Peter |last=Ellison |issue=12345 }}
displays as
Ellison, Peter (February/March 1984). "Interview: Mike Edwards". ROM Magazine (12345): 12.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
It's explained at Template:Cite journal#csdoc_page, note that |journal= is an alias for |work=. You might like to fix those red errors by using |date=February–March 1984. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

So is the ":12" the expected outcome? It seems odd compared to what we want from an sfn. Is there any reason for this difference? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I read the "In-source locations", and it seems to suggest p. 12 is the expected outcome? What am I missing here? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The things that are missing are |volume= and |issue=. {{cite journal}} is 'optimized' for academic journals which usually include both of those parameters:
{{cite journal |author=Author |title=Article title |journal=Prestigious Journal |volume=1 |issue=2 |page=25}}
Author. "Article title". Prestigious Journal 1 (2): 25. 
In the example, the numbering flows largest element to smallest and is consistent with how academic journals identify pages in a journal issue.
For the case of ROM Magazine, the value in |url= shows that these citations are to articles in issue 4 (no volume that I can tell) so adding that bit of information to the template:
{{cite journal |url= |title=Interview: Mike Edwards |journal=ROM Magazine |date=February/March 1984 |page=12 |first=Peter |last=Ellison}}</source> which displays as ::{{cite journal |url= |title=Interview: Mike Edwards |journal=ROM Magazine |date=February–March 1984 |issue=4 |page=12 |first=Peter |last=Ellison}}
Ellison, Peter (February–March 1984). "Interview: Mike Edwards". ROM Magazine (4): 12. 
There has been some discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 about tweaking the way {{cite journal}} renders page numbers so that when |volume= and |issue= are not provided, Module:Citation/CS1 uses the p. and pp. prefixes.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: You say "what we want from an sfn" - but the article Realm of Impossibility doesn't use {{sfn}}. It uses Citation Style 1 templates wrapped in <ref>...</ref> tags. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

photos in an info box[edit]

Did something change the ability to load photos in an info box? Either they are HUGE, or if you put pixel or thumb notices they do not show up at all? Examples: Ana Rosa Tornero or María Rivera Urquieta. SusunW (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Issue with all the recently uploaded files. See Special:NewFiles -NQ-Alt (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
So what does that mean? We no longer can add photos? Someone is working on the problem? I should not upload the other 4 I wanted to because they won't work either? SusunW (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
At the moment it appears that there is some sort of thumbnail generation problem on for recently uploaded files (you saw yourself that displaying full size images is fine). German Wiki etc and Commons do not appear to have the same issue. You can continue to add photos. You can continue to upload them. We don't know if anyone is working on the problem. Also, you may find it useful to follow the {{infobox person}} template instructions and change the syntax of your image additions in the infobox (and add the image_size parameter) so that they will display properly when the problem is resolved or passes. E.g. change
| image         = [[File:Ana_Rosa_Tornero.jpg|thumb|right|Ana Rosa Tornero in ''[[Wara Wara]]'' (1930)]]
| alt           = 
| caption       = 


| image         = Ana_Rosa_Tornero.jpg
| image_size    = 200px
| alt           = 
| caption       = Ana Rosa Tornero in ''[[Wara Wara]]'' (1930) 
(image size is a guess at what may be suitable) Hopefully tech are looking at the underlying issue already. Nanonic (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I added two existing Tasks that seemed relevant to this issue. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
with or without the thumb notices they don't work. If you leave off "file" all together, the photo took up almost the entire page. And I see that RedRose was trying to get it to work and now it shows no image even without "file". No point in spending a lot of time with "what if" parameters. They may not need any adjustments if they fix the problem. If I upload fair use images, and they don't fix the problem quickly I'll have to do it again because they'll be deleted for not being tied to a file within 7 days. I'll just save the links and see if it works later. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As an additional data point, seen here, some |upright values work while others break the thumb. My default thumb size is 220px; changing it to 300px causes different upright values to break the thumb. This image was uploaded in 2007. ―Mandruss  04:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Added tests of fixed px values. For me, 300, 270, 250, 240, 220, 200, 180, 150, and 120 work; 290, 280, 260, 230, 210, 190, 170, 160, 140, and 130 do not. But File:Sands Hotel 1950s.jpg fails at 250, so apparently all of that is image-dependent. ―Mandruss  09:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't think it is only enwiki problem. We (at lvwiki) don't see images, too. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Somebody get it fixed asap!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be fixed now. ―Mandruss  10:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thumbnail not displaying properly[edit]


D'oh! Didn't see the thread right above this one. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:18, 25 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.

I have tried twice to upload an album cover to the article Chicago '85... The Movie. While the image and its fair use information does show up properly when it is clicked on, the thumbnail itself appears broken in the article. Anyone know what could be wrong? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:17, 25 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.

Infobox image[edit]

Can somebody figure out why the image in Sands Hotel and Casino won't appear?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Very possibly related to one or more of the three image-related threads immediately preceding this one. ―Mandruss  08:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought originally it was a glitch with one of the photos I uploaded so I tried another one and it did the same thing! It won't even show when not in the infobox either. Strange. Hope it's fixed soon!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:38, 25 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 [8], 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)

Article creation improvements by WMF[edit]

After WMF refused to implement the autoconfirmed account creation trial, they promised that in lieu of it, there would be better tools for new page patrollers and users creating articles. Page Curation was launched three years ago, but it doesn't seem like any progress on Wikipedia article creation has been made since 2013. Is that still a project under development by WMF? Conifer (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Coordinate Templates and maps[edit]

Hi all, I mostly translate articles from other wikis into English and templates are the bane of my life. I was wondering if anyone could explain how I should perform a particular translation. The German version of the coord template can be made to produce a map (see an example here: de:Felsrelief von Fıraktın ). Could anyone suggest how I might get the same effect on English wikipedia? Cheers, Furius (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Furius: I don't know of anything on en-wiki that has coding similar to that "Coordinate" template, but see if {{Location map}} will suffice for your purposes. ―Mandruss  15:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The template is de:Vorlage:Coordinate which passes most of its parameters through to either of two subtemplates: de:Vorlage:CoordinateComplex or de:Vorlage:CoordinateSimple. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Fıraktın is located in Turkey
Location of Fıraktın in Turkey
The German code is {{Coordinate |article=/|map=left|maptype=relief|name=Fıraktın|NS=38/16/18/N|EW=35/37/54/E|type=landmark |region=TR-38}}. A similar map can be made by {{Location map}} with some work. Here I used:
{{Location map | Turkey
| float = left
| relief = yes
| label=Fıraktın
| caption = Location of Fıraktın in [[Turkey]]
| lat_deg = 38 | lat_min = 16 | lat_sec = 18 | lat_dir = N
| lon_deg = 35 | lon_min = 37 | lon_sec = 54 | lon_dir = E
Some infoboxes like {{Infobox settlement}} can also be coded to include a map. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

'Abd al-'Aziz al-Wafa'i[edit]

Should the title of 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Wafa'i start with ', or should it be "Abd al-'Aziz al-Wafa'i" instead?--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that the initial apostrophe is OK. We do have 's-Hertogenbosch after all. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I went through 's-Hertogenbosch on my way to Liège many years ago, but the name has nothing in common with Arabic names. I will take your advice on that name.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The apostrophe is the transliteration of ayn. Please see WP:MOSAR. Alakzi (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Table formatting List_of_mayors_of_Bremen[edit]

Hello, I could use some help with table formatting in List_of_mayors_of_Bremen please. It's a bit hard to describe, but I'll try: Look at the last 2 rows about Jens Böhrnsen and the new mayor Carsten Sieling. The 2nd Mayor Karoline Linnert will probably stay in office (per the German senate site). So I would like to display Karoline Linnert's data in 2-row columns stretching over both 1st Mayors (as she was 2nd Mayor with both 1st Mayors). If A are all columns for a 1st Mayor (the first 4 columns) and B are all columns for a 2nd Mayor (the last 4 columns), I want something like:

  • A1 B1
  • A1 B2
  • A2 B2, where A1 and B2 should only be 4 single boxes stretching over 2 rows. I have tried fiddling with rowspan (in preview mode) but failed. Are such alternating, "overlapping" 2-row columns possible in Wiki-tables? GermanJoe (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@GermanJoe: like this ? I've kept the split on the last row intact, but it can be easily removed as well. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@TheDJ:I think, the problem occurred when I tried to remove the last split as well (sorry for missing that detail). I simply removed the last empty cell descriptions, and then the formatting broke somehow. Would you mind removing the last split too please (the last 4 small empty cells)? Aside from that, it is exactly what I looked for. GermanJoe (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
(tested again). Deleting the last 4 cell elements is indeed my problem. It breaks the display of Karoline Linnert's cells - they no longer extend across 2 rows afterwards. GermanJoe (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
What you've got here is essentially the same problem as at Help talk:Table/Archive 5#Governors-General of the Philippines and Help talk:Table#uneven rowspans. Browsers will display a row (including a spanned row) only as high as it needs to be. To get the spacing right you need at least one column which has no rowspans. See Template:Rail line three to two which looks like it has four rows; in fact there are six, columns 2 & 4 (out of 5) each contain six unspanned cells. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that worked (I added the pseudo column at the beginning just to be sure). Many thanks to both of you for your help. GermanJoe (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes in mobile[edit]

Navboxes do not show up on the mobile Wikipedia. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they ever did. It's down to the classes associated with the template. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed.— Win 8.1 / IE 11. Compared...
... and the Navboxes only showed in desktop mode. I know navboxes are not suppose to "appear" when printed out (class="noprint") but I doubt that has anything to do with them not rendering in 'Mobile Mode' (if they ever did that is as Redrose64 pointed out). -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It's by purpose. The majority of navboxes do not render well at by 320px and unfortunately our current tech stack (templates) doesn't make it possible to style them differently on mobile and desktop. Given that on desktop the HTML markup associated with navboxes are huge it would be a great idea for us to all rethink them (possibly using JavaScript make them more interactive). Jdlrobson (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Display oddity[edit]

In Firefox 39 (current production version) in Win 7, the following, which uses <code><pre><nowiki>, nested in that order,:

| foo
| bar

displays with the first line indented by about half an em. I'm sure this hadn't used to be the case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed; same config. ―Mandruss  13:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Me too, also same config. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


Don't nest <pre> in <code>. What is the point? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


Without <code>:

| foo
| bar

Without <pre>:

| foo | bar

So omitting <code> gives the desired display. But looses the semantic meaning. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Why is the semantic meaning lost? the code element "represents a fragment of computer code"; whereas the pre element "represents a block of preformatted text" such as "fragments of computer code". --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
<pre> is block, <code> is inline. I keep explaining you cannot nest block inside inline elements (despite what HTML5 allows); MediaWiki (Read: HTML Tidy) does not allow that. Also, <pre> invokes <nowiki> by default, so no need to specify that, unless you want to actually show the tag. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Problem on WikiProject Physics page[edit]

Screenshot of the problem

Hi. There is an odd problem on Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. Some flag colored yellow, red and green floats over the content in the "Current status of physics articles" section. I am using Google Chrome 44 under Windows 8 with Vector skin. --Meno25 (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The displayed file is File:New.png, which was already included on the page but was recently overwritten with an image of the flag of Syrian Kurdistan by Iraqi man10. I've reverted the image. SiBr4 (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@SiBr4: Thank you for the quick help. --Meno25 (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Nonexistent existing userpage[edit]

User:Green Giant doesn't exist: I get the little "View or restore 4 deleted edits?" link at the top, just as I do with a previously deleted page that doesn't currently exist, and the tabs at top say "Create this page" and "undelete 4 edits" instead of "edit this page" and "history". All very nice, except for the obvious fact that the page exists! All the links go directly to Commons, and it's identical to Commons:User:Green Giant. Has some software weirdness happened, or am I just unaware of a new feature/bug that transcludes your Commons userpage if your en:wp userpage doesn't exist? Nyttend (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

See the note at the bottom of the page: "What you see on this page was copied from //" It is a global user page.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hehe, aye it is the global user page; if you don't have a user page on any particular wiki, it will show whatever is on your Meta user page, but your user talk pages are not affected. When it became operational, I requested deletion of several of my user pages on other wikis because I want to migrate from being a Wikipedian to being a Wikimedian. The ENWP and Commons user pages were more complex so I didn't get round to getting them deleted until yesterday. I believe there will also be global notifications and watch-lists in the future. Green Giant (talk) 19:47, 26 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 ([9])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;
} hide the scrolling stripes of doom, and...

#searchText > div {
    display: none;
} 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 [ 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 - 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)

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 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)

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) 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)

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)