Wikipedia talk:Twinkle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:TW)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WT:TW" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia talk:Transwiki log, or the WikiProject Taiwan talk page.

This page is for general discussion and questions related to Twinkle. It is also one possible venue for reporting bugs and requesting new features; although see Bugs and feature requests below.

Consider also checking Twinkle's documentation, which may answer your question.

e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:
  • Update TODO list
  • Ability to remove maintenance tags from articles using the "tag" module
  • Incorporate one of the many delsort scripts into Twinkle (see WP:DELSORT)
  • Incorporate FurMe into Twinkle

Bugs and feature requests[edit]

Bugs and feature requests can be reported at (you will need to have a GitHub account). This will probably result in the issue being noticed sooner, as an e-mail is sent to all Twinkle developers. Alternatively, start a new discussion on this page. Possibly slower service, but you will be able to gain consensus, etc., if you need to.

Go to user talk when reverting pending changes[edit]

When a page is reverted with the pending changes "Revert changes" button, Twinkle should give a nice link to go to the user's talk page with the page name pre-filled, like it does when "real" rollback is used. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll look into this. I only have reviewer rights on testwiki, so I hope our setup is not too different. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
@Jackmcbarn: Hm, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to here. When I clicked "Reject changes" I seemed to get sent back to the article itself. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
A link from the confirmation page, I mean. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Being hopelessly inexperienced with Pending Changes, I will need step-by-step instructions of every click you are making :) — This, that and the other (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Talk page link on pending changes revert screen.png Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
So you want to see a talk page link even before you have made the revert? That seems like a strange order in which to do things. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I know that's kind of strange, but after the revert is made, there's nowhere to put the talk page link. The other alternative is to make the user's talk page pop open in a new window after the revert, the way that it does when you use Twinkle's own rollback to revert someone. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
@Jackmcbarn: Sorry Jack, I missed your reply. Yes, a popup wouldn't be a bad idea, although I'm hesitant to add another one. I'll see what is possible here and think about the best way to implement it. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Threadcromancy, but I would suggest using popups to direct you quickly to their user talk page. You'll have to copy the page name manually, but it's nonetheless faster than clicking and clicking repeatedly. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 22:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to see the vandal's talk page, but I would like this bot to automatically create a talk page for the vandal, if necessary, and post a notice on the vandal's talk page that they did something offensive. In my recent use of this bot, no notice was posted on the vandal's talk page; apparently because there was no existing talk page for the vandal. - Ac44ck (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


...for lack of a better heading.

  • The preferences panel at Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences nowhere states that twinkle preferences are actually stored on a wiki page, and are hence public (unlike the mediawiki preferences). A js-savvy user could easily understand what they mean (and even a not-so-savvy user could copy-paste someone else's preferences and then go to the twinkle preferences panel). Also, the page doesn't mention that the prefs will be released under the default wikipedia license. (Not sure if there's a copyright/privacy violation in there anywhere, but you might want to look into this.)
  • Someone might want to take a look at this commit I did downstream back in 2012. It includes a function to softcode namespace names in regex creation for the unlink tool in morebits.js. Devs may want to properly implement that upstream. The benefit would be that the regex would work on any wikipedia without problem.
  • There's a script at hi:User:Siddhartha Ghai/twinkle.js which loads for me a personal version of twinkle from various user subpages. The only difference from the gadget version is that the header and footer have been kept separate. Devs might want to consider separating them again since using this script, changes in one module can be tested easily with the other live modules (i.e copy one module to your userspace, make some changes, use hi:User:Siddhartha Ghai/twinkle.js to load the default gadget, only replacing the changed module with the userspace subpage instead of the mediawiki page) and you can test the changes live!
  • Over the past 1.5 months I've done a lot of updates to the gadget at hi.wp (stuff dating from May 2012 to October 2013). I'm just giving a heads up since I may have to take a long wikibreak and if the gadget breaks there, someone might complain here. Anything that was implemented after mid-October hasn't been implemented there (including the mediawiki js deprecations removal)
  • Oh, and it seems that Jimbo uses Twinkle too, in case any of the devs ever want to do an April Fool's prank for users in the founder group ;) --Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow, even Jimbo Wales uses Twinkle? Man, this is just reason enough to get all autoconfirmed users in good standing to get Twinkle, even if they're not planning on using it often. It's just an awesome tool. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 21:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm considering adding a line to the top of the preferences panel saying "Note that your preferences will be released publicly as JavaScript code in a subpage of your user page." Thoughts? Eman235/talk 06:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
If you really want to do it, perhaps something less technical would be better: "Note that your preferences are stored in (a subpage of your user page). Only you (and Wikipedia administrators) can modify your preferences, but the settings you choose are visible to everyone." — This, that and the other (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
And now the {{-}} is boggling me. If this note is going to be put in I don't think I can do it. Face-confused.svg Eman235/talk 00:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
*slaps self* never mind, figured it out. I made a slight change to the wording mention that it is JavaScript, not blatant text -- dunno what you think of that -- but yes, item one in this list is amended, kind of. Eman235/talk 00:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Rollback edit message pop-up box[edit]

Hi, could the edit message box that pops up during a Twinkle Rollback be made a little friendlier? Currently, when the box is displayed, I am unable to do anything else with the browser. This means that if I want to, for example, look up a link to add to the edit message, I am unable to open a new tab or switch to a different one until I get rid of this pop-up box. Of course, if I do click cancel and am slow in closing that tab, the rollback proceeds with an empty edit message. Thanks. --~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpt.a.haddock (talkcontribs)

Since we are using the JavaScript function window.prompt what you are experiencing is a limitation of your browser, not Twinkle. I am unaware of any immediate plans to use another more customized method of prompting for a message. Sorry I could not be of more help! MusikAnimal talk 17:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Thank you. The Wikipedia Visual Editor uses a dialog window which is a lot friendlier. Perhaps that code can be reused here. Please consider something like it in order to improve usability.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocking bug[edit]

Twinkle block issue.png

I mentioned this above, but it's still a problem. If I use the block gadget at home, it works fine. If I use it in my office (part of a larger network), it fails. Bug 1 - if I try to issue a template only (having already blocked the editor), it simply hangs. Bug 2 - if I try to use the whole gadget, it won't let me issue the block at all, with the following error message, even if I've specified a time. It's not a major problem because I don't often edit Wikipedia from my office, but ... Any ideas? Black Kite (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In that screenshot, I notice several "broken image" icons. Might it be that your connection to the relevant server is flaky? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that. I'll try it again tomorrow (the building where my office is located is known for occasionally dipping out connection-wise, but it's usually fine). Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Black Kite: What browser are you using? The "please provide an expiry" message should only happen if an expiry is not provided, and have nothing to do with an internet connection. However we are using various ES5 functions that seemingly could cause this unexpected behaviour if you're using an outdated browser. MusikAnimal talk 21:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Having done some more experimentation this is clearly something to do with the setup of the network I'm working on. The bug is still happening, on IE11 and Firefox 39. At home, with the same setup, I have no problems at all. Clearly something in the way our network communicates with the Internet is causing the issue. We share the network with an educational institution so I wonder if their webfilter is something to do with it (though, having said that, the previous warning gadget worked fine). Anyway, I do very little blocking from my office (I only look at Wikipedia in my lunch hour and odd breaks) so it's not a big deal. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
For a couple of years I was occasionally working in an institution where their firewall (or some such) blocked certain websites, mainly porn and gambling. It allowed but prevented (presumably because of the uncensored explicit photos) so that I couldn't get to the true file description page for a lot of images, but the images themselves were displayed in the articles because they're held on another domain - the URLs begin for images hosted on Wikipedia, and for images hosted on Commons. Your broken images imply that is blocked for you, so other domains - such as those holding scripts - might also be blocked. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep, a little more investigation reveals that all Commons sites are blocked (presumably for the same reason you mention above). Also, the network manager says he's "not surprised at all" that some scripts might be blocked as their filter uses whitelisting rather than blacklisting. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


FYI, {{Welcomevandal}} has been renamed to {{Welcome-unconstructive}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Invalid token error message?[edit]

I'm trying to tag an article as being advert like but I get back a red error message "Tagging article: Failed to save edit: Invalid token". Is anyone else having this problem? RJFJR (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

WMF issue, I believe. More at phab:T102199. Is the issue persistent for you? Usually reloading the page then trying again does the trick MusikAnimal talk 14:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Works now, was consistent yesterday. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Page rename[edit]

In compliance with the Twinkle notice, this is to let it be known that a proposal is in progress to rename a redirect category (rcat) template. The template to be renamed is {{R from title without diacritics}}, and its new title is proposed to be {{R to diacritics}}. A pre-move inquiry has been posted to the Village pump. Thank you and Best of Everything to You and Yours! – Paine  07:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: Page move was effected at 21:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC). Joys! – Paine  01:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Missing talk page block template[edit]

Hi, unless I'm missing something the new block module seems to be missing Template:Uw-ipevadeblock from the dropdown; at the moment the only sock blocking message is an indef for registered accounts. Could it be added back? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Second this. --NeilN talk to me 14:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Black Kite and NeilN: This should be in the dropdown under the "extended reasons". It is labeled "Block evasion – IP". MusikAnimal talk 17:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Sorry, we should have been clearer. There's no "Block evasion - IP" equivalent for registered editors. Even if you block a registered editor (the master) for X hours for creating a sock, the message is still says indef. --NeilN talk to me 17:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
And I realize that was still totally unclear. What I'm looking for is a message to give to a sockmaster that they've been blocked for X hours for creating puppets. --NeilN talk to me 17:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Got it. This is on the to-dos, and I'll hop on this as soon as I get a chance. The problem is that template does not adhere to WP:UW and requires special handling. I'd like to rework it to conformities, but that'd require broader discussion and also an update to other scripts. I can implement a workaround for the time being. Also, just so you know, if you are blocking from closing SPIs, I highly recommend you use spihelper.js if you aren't already! :) MusikAnimal talk 17:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Ooooh, another useful script! --NeilN talk to me 17:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see, it only appears when you're actually blocking an IP. I just happened to notice that it wasn't there last time I blocked a registered account. That's clever. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Alright! For registered accounts, you should now see "Sock puppetry (master)" and "Sock puppetry (sock)". Obviously use the first one when blocking the sockmaster; it uses {{uw-sockblock}} which conforms to standards. This used to redirect to {{SockBlock}} so I'm not sure if there are scripts out there that will now break, but the "what links here" suggests we have nothing to worry about (SPI helper script does not use it). {{SockBlock}} has remained unchanged and is the template you should use when blocking sockpuppets. For IPs you should use the block evasion template. Let me know if you have any issues! Best MusikAnimal talk 15:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --NeilN talk to me 15:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please review blocking messages[edit]

{{[[Template:As noted at the linked thread, TW is simply setting anon=yes on the block templates. The proper venue for discussing the wording is WT:UW, where there's already a thread about this. —Darkwind (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)|As noted at the linked thread, TW is simply setting anon=yes on the block templates. The proper venue for discussing the wording is WT:UW, where there's already a thread about this. —Darkwind (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)]]}}

Per here. For example:

  • "You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions."
should not be changed to for IPs:
  • "Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit."

--NeilN talk to me 14:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's take this up at WT:UW, as according to the template documentation, this is the wording that was intended to be used under the stewardship of WikiProject User Warnings. The old Twinkle Warn module simply did not take into account if you were templating an IP or an account, so I believe people got used to it being that way and accepted it as the norm. If you are performing a soft block, registered users are still allowed to edit, and the template reflects this, per WP:FRIENDLYBLOCKS. If you are concerned about them logging into an existing account, consider a hard block ("Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address"), which then the |anon=yes parameter will be omitted from the template. I do however agree some rewording could be done to not imply the disruptive user is still allowed to continue editing under an account. So I think Staszek Lem's suggested rewording would be the best route, rather than to omit the |anon=yes parameter entirely. But again let's move the discussion to WT:UW. Cheers MusikAnimal talk 17:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN, Darkwind, and MusikAnimal: I disagree; this is still a Twinkle issue, too. Even though the flag is, yes, goofy on the template, you should be able to override what options are being passed into the template. Twinkle was changed relatively recently in the way blocking and the template addition was done, and it now shouldn't be assuming that just because you're blocking an anonymous user that you're not also going to (or didn't already) block logged in users from editing on that IP as well (i.e., it shouldn't be assuming all blocks are anon-only). Though talk-page access disabling is there as an option to check, the ability to check the "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" box (and have it be reflected by not using anon=yes) isn't there. --slakrtalk / 02:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, on second look, it looks like this is a victim of its own technological advancement. It apparently checks the currently active block for the anon-only flag and forces that regardless (i.e., there's no option to ignore or disable that check), even if it wasn't your intention to use it (and, as is more applicable to the complaint, when you don't want to explicitly advertise the fact to the user). I think the latter half of that is the more applicable point, because most of our blocks are, by default, anon-only when it comes to IP users; however, we've always made it a point not to advertise the fact except when doing things like {{schoolblock}} or {{anonblock}}, which basically have their own templates that are significantly less bitey in the first place (plus can forward people on to account creation help). --slakrtalk / 02:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

More block templates for when you have to block 100+ socks?[edit]

At WP:AN User:Bishonen has written that "All the accounts welcomed here by User:Can you please provide me with a username. Thank you. are socks of the "Not a massive fan" IP vandal, all created on 21 June 2015 (I assume; I only checked the creation log date for a few, but of course they were) and ready to be autoconfirmed by ten back-and-forth edits the moment the vandal wants to edit a semiprotected page, such as this and this today. Does somebody have access to a script or tool that would simplify blocking all these sleepers, please? Also, presumably there may be more, from another date and welcomed by "somebody else". Might a CU look for them, please? Bishonen | talk 22:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC).

Well, I have to go to bed, and I don't know how to take this further. I just called for a CU on IRC, to no avail. But note also that there's no CU needed to identify that long list as socks of a single individual: — follow my links and you'll see what I mean. Follow this fellow to Acroterion's page for instance, and look at the history of User talk:The Caledonian Sleeper. I'm hoping any script-savvy person (where are you, Writ Keeper?) can do the blocking. There are so many socks that I at least, am not up for blocking them by hand. Maybe a few admins want to pitch in as a collaborative effort? Bishonen | talk 02:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)."

The first (or rather last) 21 were blocked, I'm starting on the others, but this is going to take a lot of time. Twinkle would have been a real boon. Or [[User talk:MusikAnimal, do you know of something else that would do the job? Doug Weller (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, Twinkle has a batch delete tool, a batch undelete tool, a batch protect tool... Would a "batch block" tool along similar lines be of any use? — This, that and the other (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
In theory, you could use Twinkle to file them all in a single SPI then use the SPI Helper script to mass-block, but you'd still have to copy-paste all the usernames individually into the SPI-report function of Twinkle. It's better than manually blocking them all, but far from ideal. This, that and the other, the SPI Helper script allows mass block-tagging, so perhaps some portion of it could be adapted to Twinkle?  · Salvidrim! ·  14:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, the author of the SPI helper script also made massblock.js :) I've never tried it, but it looks like it does what you want. With this you'll still need to copy/paste the usernames, though. We could look into making a batch-block tool for Twinkle that goes by a category, or *maybe* parses the current page to find usernames, but how often does this really happen? MusikAnimal talk 15:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

{{dead link}} maintenance tag[edit]

New to Twinkle, so perhaps I missed something, but as I was reviewing an article earlier, I clicked on an external link only to find myself with a 404 error (page not found). Alas, the "official link" for the TV show Unforgettable is no longer supported by CBS since they cancelled the show and another network is picking it up (but appears not to have made their own "official site" for the show yet). "Oh goody!" I thought, "Now I can try out a Twinkle maintenance tag." Imagine my surprise to find that this particular tag is not supported by Twinkle. The {{dead link}} template is used on over 130,000 pages, so I'm thinking that it is common enough to add to Twinkle. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's a reason it isn't already there (but if so, I was unable to find it in the archives). So please consider this to be a request for discussion and/or addition of this tag to those supported by Twinkle.  Etamni | ✉  05:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It's because {{dead link}} is typically added directly after said deceased URL, not just as a general maintenance template.  · Salvidrim! ·  05:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense.  Etamni | ✉  07:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Noticeboard notification[edit]

I did a report to AN3 -- here using the arv button on the user's talk page, thought the twinkle notification to the user went through, but apparently not. There's no check to notify like in the sock options, so I'm guessing it should be by default. It may just be a one off thing or operator error, so any answers/pointers would be helpful. —SpacemanSpiff 17:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

TfD for {{Uw-vgoblock}}[edit]

I just closed the TfD for the warning template {{Uw-vgoblock}} as delete, and then noticed the 'please notify Twinkle maintainers' banner on it. The reason for deletion is the fact that it's apparently never used and until recently gave out-of-date advice, and I don't see it available in Twinkle, so likely the notification request is also out of date. In any case, it is {{being deleted}} until confirmed. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)