Wikipedia talk:Ultraviolet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:RedWarn)

Going Ultraviolet[edit]

Hello there! By now, you may have already noticed that RedWarn hasn't had any major updates since 16.1 (released on March 8, 2021), and we've only been sending out some minor patches and bugfixes since then. In that time, we've been hard at work developing a complete rewrite of the project since September 2020, and we've finally done enough work to be able to release a beta version of this rewrite soon.

Because of many different factors, including the rewrite having diverged so much from the original code, the team has decided to give this version of RedWarn a brand new name. We've decided to call it Ultraviolet; electromagnetic radiation found past the opposite side of red on the visible light spectrum. Releases of the userscript will eventually be available on user pages of 10nm — 10 nanometers being the smallest possible wavelength of ultraviolet light. We're still working on getting a user-friendly version of Ultraviolet available; we ask for your patience as we get closer to releasing more feature-filled builds of Ultraviolet.

Ultraviolet (software) wordmark logo.svg
Is this a new script or just a rebranded version of RedWarn?

In essence, Ultraviolet is a rewritten version of RedWarn. That said, most of the original code has been removed or replaced. Significant work has also been done to make the process of using the script smooth and universal, removing nearly all of the UI-related bugs experienced in the current version of RedWarn. In addition, we're also working on Safari support, mobile usability, internationalization (other languages), wiki-specific configurations, a dark mode, and a lot more features that make Ultraviolet just work out of the box.

What this means for RedWarn

For a while, we've been holding off on development of further versions of RedWarn in favor of the rewrite. Expanding on the current code is a feat that would take a significant amount of time, on par with just rewriting the script itself. For now, RedWarn will still be supported and given security updates and patches for minor bugs. Once Ultraviolet has been completed and integrates all the features of RedWarn, we will decommission RedWarn and ask users to switch to the new userscript.

What this means for you, as a user

Stick to RedWarn while we're still working on implementing all the features of RedWarn into Ultraviolet. Rest assured, we will still provide updates that prioritize user safety and security, so you can still use RedWarn without the fear of compromise. We highly recommend to anyone who does counter-vandalism patrol often to use only RedWarn for now in order to avoid any catastrophic bugs. We're still finishing up on making the script backwards-compatible with your existing RedWarn configuration, after that we'll begin providing beta versions of Ultraviolet, so that anyone who wishes to use Ultraviolet before it has caught up with RedWarn can do so.

You'll be able to keep on using RedWarn until we've made our first release version (i.e. 1.0) of Ultraviolet. After that, we will require you to switch to Ultraviolet from RedWarn, as we will be dropping support for RedWarn. Although this may be a bit of a bother, we ask for your patience in this eventual transition.

What else this means

We'll be moving away from the RedWarn name entirely in the coming months. The team believes it's important to move away from the name, as most of Ultraviolet has been built from scratch and holds little to no resemblance to RedWarn (at least in terms of the code), and due to some other reasons.

This is a big milestone for us as userscript developers, and we hope to have your full support. In case you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask us about them below. Thanks!

Written by Chlod, Berrely, Sennecaster, and Remagoxer. Published by Chlod (RW • say hi!) 19:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Chlod, is there any update on the progress of this? There's no rush, just curious. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi there, @Qwerfjkl! The developers are currently busy on a few things, me specifically being busy (in recent months) with Deputy, although now that the bulk of the starting work on that has wrapped up, I can start working on Ultraviolet again. In the meantime, we've been doing some background work that'll help us facilitate the move from to Wikimedia GitLab, and we're currently planning how to perform that migration within the near future. Next up on the list of major features up for implementation is a module for marking pages for speedy deletion, so that's on my list of things to research. Hope this answers your question! Chlod (UV • say hi!) 03:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Auto subscribe to warning topics on user talk[edit]

Could a feature to automatically subscribe to warning topics on user talk pages be implemented? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a planned feature for Ultraviolet; support may be limited as of now as DiscussionTools is in beta and the API for it may change without notice. Chlod (UV • say hi!) 13:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uninstall quick template[edit]

How to uninstall a quick templates bunch? I have installed a quick template but now I want to uninstall, what should I do? Lemonaka (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Lemonaka, you can delete a template pack you have installed in RedWarn by opening the Quick Template dialog, selecting the pencil icon next to the pack and selecting "Delete This Pack". ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 07:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feature request and talk page bug[edit]

Hello! This consists of a feature request for UV, and a bug on this very talk page. The feature request is to allow pressing the enter key to submit an edit summary. The bug is that the "feature request" button on this talk page does not seem to work (or at least, not on my alt). Blaze Fire Wolf (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like it does work, you just have to click on the next and not on the button directly. Chlod (UV • say hi!) 03:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct the gitlab link in the script[edit]


The repo has changed. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already done in code, but not yet deployed. Expect the change in a short while, as a quick change for AIV is on the way. Chlod (UV • say hi!) 03:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disabling a feature[edit]

Hello, I cannot seem to find how to disable ( current prev rvv rb ) from showing up on Special:Contributions pages in redwarn settings or documentation. All I could find is the update when the feature was added. Is there a way to disable the feature? - GA Melbourne (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GA Melbourne: There is currently no way to disable those buttons on RedWarn. Chlod (UV • say hi!) 13:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

uw-engvar misplaced parameters[edit]

I gave a user the uw-engvar reminder at their talk page. However, instead of correctly filling in the 1 parameter with the page name, it filled up the 2 parameter instead, causing it to appear as a comment. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aaron Liu: When reporting bugs, please ensure that this isn't a one-time issue and provide means of reproducing the problem. After testing, both RedWarn and Ultraviolet properly handle the page name. Chlod (UV • say hi!) 12:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feature request[edit]

When making a report to OS via UV, before you click the box there's a message that says "Please confirm your diligence in writing this report." I don't think diligence is the correct word to use here as Google defines "diligence" as "careful and persistent work or effort". I think instead it should say "Please confirm that everything in this report is correct." which is what clicking the box says you do. Blaze Fire Wolf (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Blaze Fire Wolf: I don't see a big problem here. Wiktionary defines it as "Carefulness." This same interpretation gives rise to the term "due diligence", wherein a user properly gives the reasonable amount of care (or perhaps more) in writing their report—this is the basis of that checkbox's label. If you wanted to get really deep into semantics, in an emergency report, correctness cannot be fully guaranteed. A reporter can get the facts wrong, especially in the case of recent changes patrolling where everything is fast-paced. Attention to the issue through information gained through careful checking, particularly in imminent threats of harm, is paramount; reporting a death threat shouldn't feel like you're filing under penalty of perjury. Chlod (UV • say hi!) 21:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm... you do make a good point. However in my opinion using the word "Diligence" without "due diligence" in here reads a little odd as I feel the majority of people would go with the first definition (and maybe the 2nd altho that would be closer to "diligent"). I'm trying to think of what might be better to put there that wouldn't be as odd. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 22:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]