Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legoktm (talk | contribs) at 05:50, 16 October 2021 (→‎Redlink to existing page: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Newcomers to the technical village pump are encouraged to read these guidelines prior to posting here. If you want to report a JavaScript error, please follow this guideline. Questions about MediaWiki in general should be posted at the MediaWiki support desk. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for five days.


Mapframe bug with references

I'm trying to use {{Mapframe}} here. However, when I click on the map, the text along the bottom turns into Map of Pomona College's campus[130][131] .mw-parser-output .div-col{margin-top:0.3em;column-width:30em}.mw-parser-output...

Additionally, when I try to add a reference to the |description= field for any of the markers, it spits out things like '"`UNIQ--ref-000000C1-QINU`"' (click on one of the teal icons in the northwest corner to see the issue).

Is whatever is causing these bugs a known issue? Is there any way around it? I was able to find a workaround for {{abbr}} by using <abbr title="Information Technology">IT</abbr> instead of {{abbr|IT|Information Technology}}, but I'm not sure if anything like that can be done for references, especially when they're SFNs. Help?

(I also have an additional mapframe question here if anyone here knows it well.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recall there being a bug for the first one but I can't find it. I would recommend filing a new one under the Maps and TemplateStyles projects on Phab. It's not TemplateStyles fault, it's whatever lightbox implementation Maps are using not dealing gracefully with <style> elements and their contents, but tagging it for other just makes it obvious.
I'm not really surprised the second exists. In general, when you see a UNIQQINU pattern, it's a strip marker. Sometimes there's a limitation in the MW software can handle some input and sometimes we didn't code things properly on our side. That should start with a talk page message for the template/module to see if local template editors can see why that would be.
I don't really understand what issue you thought you had with the third that you "worked around". Izno (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Now that I look, I see one directly pertinent to the strip marker issue and <ref> specifically.) Izno (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I created phab:T292598 for the first one. For the second, ɱ appears to be active at the module talk; would you perhaps be able to help? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: - it seems that mapframe doesn't support inline references (except in captions, but you have the minor display issue at the bottom, like you mentioned). If I were you, I would move the map to its own page, like {{Ohio Statehouse map}} or {{George Floyd protests map}}, and there you can list out what is sourced for what, without dealing with display issues. Like how an image's file description page has attribution, same deal. ɱ (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ, do you know what would need to be done to get mapframe to support inline references? I'll consider moving to a subpage, but that comes with some significant drawbacks, such as losing the ability to repeat references and requiring readers to click through. I'm planning to take the article to FAC and some reviewers may be hesitant to allow that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File's old versions

Hello. DeltaQuadBot has stopped hiding old versions of my files. I reached out to its owner (User talk:AmandaNP#DeltaQuadBot) and she found out that the problem is not in the bot, but in the category. Category is empty. But my files (for example: File:Paseo (film).jpg, File:Prince's Tale.jpg, File:Souls of Totality.jpg) must be in this category. What could be the problem? — Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 04:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it even more concerning that there might be almost 2,000 files sitting because it's not coming up in the category. I proposed here might be a better place to try and resolve this as it's not a bot issue. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem seems to be that Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old isn't added to the pages in an edit, but by {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} based on date, so if the template is placed before the revisions are a week old, the category isn't updated. Null-editing the file propagates the change, but manual null-edits aren't exactly the fix for an automatic task. Maybe DeltaQuadBot could instead operate on Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions and check the dates itself? – Rummskartoffel 10:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would require a large write in the code, which i'm not going to lie, is not what I want to do. I'm sure though that my bot wouldn't be the only one affected by this. So i'm not sure a small fix is really the optimal solution here. It used to work perfectly, so I'm assuming that this was a change, and if so, some back porting should have been done to allow them to change categories. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is an bug for this issue at phab:T51803, when it gets fixed it would populate the category based on the #time parser function in the template, so 7 days after the last edit. Currently the files will end up in the category 1 month after the last edit, so 3 weeks later than they should.--Snævar (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's it. The date does get calculated correctly and the category shows up on the file page, but the file doesn't show up on the category page. For instance, at the time of writing this comment, this is the case for File:Vanessa Carlton - Be Not Nobody.jpg, which was supposed to be revdelled on October 3. You can quite easily find more affected files by just looking through transclusions of {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}. – Rummskartoffel 10:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is not about calculating the date correctly, it is about invalidating server side cache. So, once the bug gets fixed once the resulting time of #time is up the cache server side would get purged. The rest of the comment is also only about server side cache.--Snævar (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I phrased my comment badly. The problem is not that the template isn't putting [[:Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old]] on the file page after 7 days – it does that, at least in some cases (such as the example I linked to), as evidenced by the category showing up in the box at the bottom of the page. The problem is that the cache invalidation doesn't seem to propagate to the category, so the file "thinks" it's in the category when it really isn't. Does that make sense, or am I misunderstanding something? – Rummskartoffel 14:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does make sense, and it's been a problem ever since a MediaWiki update in (IIRC) mid-2014. When you get a situation like this (page has a category at the bottom but doesn't show on the category itself, or (less often) vice versa) the thing to do is WP:NULLEDIT the affected page, and then WP:PURGE the category. Joe's Null Bot (talk · contribs) used to carry out the first part frequently, so that files sitting out the grace period of a CSD criterion would move to the appropriate "ready for deletion" category within 24 hours of the grace period expiring. The bot hasn't run for about three years now. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And ProcBot has partially taken up the task (see User:ProcBot/PurgeList). * Pppery * it has begun... 15:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: So would I put that in the category I want them to show up in, or a category where they already are? Because I'd like to get this set back up. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The category where the pages are presently being listed. This is not necessarily the category shown at the bottom of the page concerned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions in this case. I believe adding {{/purge-cat|Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions|1|day}} to User:ProcBot/PurgeList2 would work, but I have no relevant experience here other than having read the documentation. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that DeltaQuadBot seems to have already processed ~1000 files in the last few hours, so someone must have done something. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. Definitely wasn't me, but i'll likely still put that up sometime soon just to make sure files are being processed. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Though I wonder, if this issue has existed for so long, why hasn't it previously affected DQBot? – Rummskartoffel 15:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the bot is working fine now. At least with my files. — Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 06:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upside-down history

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T292791
Resolved

When I go to see the earliest history it's upside-down, with the earliest at the top. DuncanHill (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's the intended behaviour of &dir=prev, I believe. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So how do I stop it doing that as it's never done it before and I never asked it to? DuncanHill (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Then it's changed. That query option would normally display oldest at bottom, and if there was a &offset= option, that would be the bottom of the list and the 50 (or whatever is set by &limit=) edits newer than that would be displayed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And look at the first edit, −1,771 bytes. How is that possible? DuncanHill (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It's subtracting the size for one line from the size for the line above, as normal, But because they're now in reverse order, this means that the newer file size is subtracted from the older, instead of the other way around: the reported change should be +1,771 bytes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Clicking on "older 50" on the history page gives me 4 edits! DuncanHill (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's comparing the size to the last edit displayed on that page, the same if you click the "prev" diff link. Definitely not the desired behaviour, being tracked at phab:T292791. the wub "?!" 19:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's definitely broken. Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, just noticed, this is quite broken. Going to the oldest history, the history is upside down, which would be fine, but the initial edit has a functioning "prev" link and byte diff, which compares it to the last item on the previous page of newer history. Or something. Very confusing.  Nixinova   T   C   01:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Came here to report the same thing. For me, if I go to a history page, the first page is fine (newest revisions at top). If I click on "older 50", the next page still has the results in the same order. If I click on "oldest", the oldest 50 revisions are shown, still with the newest of those 50 at the top. Any time I click on "newer 50", the results are reversed, with the oldest at the top, and the diff links and bytes changed are incorrect (they're not referring to the previous or next edit but seemingly to a random edit - I haven't figured out the pattern yet). Clicking "older 50" or "newest" will then bring up a page with results in the correct order. Hoping it gets fixed soon. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Size change is 0 for the middle row (call this row n). Size change for row n+k is its page size minus that of row n-k. For example, if the version six rows above the middle is 9123 bytes and that six rows below the middle only 9000 bytes, we get (+123) on the former and (-123) on the latter. Uses for this novel statistic are not immediately obvious. Certes (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, incorrect size changes doesn't matter that much, what matter is that the "prev." version difference became useless - compare what is shown for changes in edits "added category" (when only category is added) in normal and reversed order.
This makes the reversed list entirely useless. MarMi wiki (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be fixed now.  Nixinova   T   C   04:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This got fixed yesterday. the wub "?!" 08:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T292971

I just today corrected the official website of Atrium Health Navicent Peach. The lapsed domain had been captured by malicious actors. How come there isn't a bot that scans for this? Is there but did it not scan a link that had previously been ok? 1Veertje (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@1Veertje: do you mean to check whether we have a bot/code in place that checks whether a domain that is used has changed owner while sitting on a Wikipedia page? And then do that for every single external link throughout Wikipedia on a regular basis. I do not think we have that, and that would be rather server intensive for a rather low hitrate (domain ownership changes do not happen that often). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, check if a domain is a known vector for virusses/malware. Services like StopBadware help with that and should be responsible thing any big website does. 1Veertje (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not something that is done systematically (not even at time of addition). I could probably make m:user:LiWa3 scan webpages at addition time against this website (or Google's blacklist) and provide alerting for it, but that does not help a lot (as it more often happens that websites get hacked or repurposed later while they are already available on Wikipedia).
It would therefore likely make more sense to have a database scan that checks whether sites on such lists appear on Wikipedia and make reports on that on a regular basis. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The externallinks table already indexes all external links on WP, so can't you use that? – SD0001 (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SD0001: m:User:LiWa3 is working of the current feed of edits as, next to plain documenting, it also tries to catch ongoing spamming and is feeding user:XLinkBot. It does some scans for typical spam checks at addition time of the link (stopforumspam is one, trying to catch some typical spammer tags is another), I could add checks against google's blacklist and other websites like StopBadware there as well (IF those website allow the hammering by a bot, which not all allow). It might catch some malicious websites at addition time and would then throw an alert on IRC for that.
What 1Veertje wants indeed should run from the externallinks table, probably by making a database of all domains with certain data (that should not be too hard by running a proper query on the table) and go through selected data and scans for listing of already existing links on the database. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would indeed be nice. I created a ticket for this, even though I don't expect this to be picked up any time soon. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you come across a hijacked domain (spammers, hackers etc) report it to WP:URLREQ where it can be usurpified by bot ie. |url-status=usurped and some other things. -- GreenC 14:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2021-41

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 October. It will be on all wikis from 14 October (calendar).

Meetings

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Picking random users?

Do any tools exist for picking a random sampling of users who meet some criteria, for statistical studies. For example, I might want 1000 users who have more than 500 edits, are not blocked, and have made at least 10 edits in the past 90 days. I can write something like that, but why reinvent the wheel? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT N? (I'm assuming you can get the sample space with an SQL query). – SD0001 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

slow pages saves waiting for intake-analytics.wikimedia.org

Anyone else having intermittent problems saving pages today, with timeouts "waiting for intake-analytics.wikimedia.org"? — xaosflux Talk 18:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using adblock or blocking third party cookies that could happen. There is a bug for an third party cookies issue, although it is not an save issue, at bug T262996. There is also another issue I can think of that could impact it, it is entirely an adblock issue, I am going to save that one for later.--Snævar (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interface protection message bug

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:No article text § Incorrect advise given to IPs who try to create template pages. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InputBoxes position

Hello! Is it possible to choose the position of input boxes? So they don't appear like this but in a structured manner, say for example, 2 aligned on one side, 2 aligned on the other side and 1 in the middle?

I read the documentation many times but couldn't find any helpful information in regard to that. - Klein Muçi (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to make a template and use TemplateStyles for that, probably using display: flex or display: grid (floating the boxes might work but it won't be as easy I suspect). Most MediaWiki-supported browsers work with display flex; display grid is a little patchier but still most browsers that MW supports. Izno (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno, yeah thought that that would be the only way. I was hoping to find a wrapper template already here and only deal with the customization but {{Inputbox}} doesn't seem to offer that kind of functionality yet, does it? (Although it does offer some quite... nice... documentation...) - Klein Muçi (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CSS Flexible Box Layout Module Level 1 is at the Candidate Recommendation stage, and CSS Grid Layout Module Level 1 is at the Candidate Recommendation Draft stage. This means that they are still not finalised, and shouldn't be relied upon. They are at least out of the Working Draft stage, which means that they're being taken seriously and the chances of being abandoned (as a Working Group Note) are fairly low. See the W3C Recommendation Track: if they make it through to Proposed Recommendation there should then be a good chance that they'll eventually reach W3C Recommendation, at which point virtually all browsers current at the time will support these features. But it can take years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Defacto, flexbox is supported 99.9% by browsers we deliver content to and grid is supported 94%. I've used flexbox in dozens of templates over the last year. And we even use grid somewhere as an experiment (with some basic fallbacks) and no one seems to have noticed yet. The status of the documents doesn't matter. These are all living standards now. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^. Flexbox and grid aren't going anywhere. Izno (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris new mediawiki computer browser interface update has new language bar so maybe it should point to wikiquote and wikinews etc as well their are the only one that is left in the left menu they could be in subject bar/authority control/unified template but top has better visibility bi (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Baratiiman: the "in other projects" relationship is already active on the frwiki page. Are you having some problems here on enwiki? If your technical issue is only on frwiki, you may want to ask at w:fr:Wikipédia:Questions_techniques. — xaosflux Talk 14:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SGrabarczuk (WMF), I think this feedback is for you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Thanks, we'll look into it. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Language variables

We have received a question in the Incubator about how to translate language names for #language. I have tried to search for such messages on translatewiki.net to no avail, but they are probably there somewhere.

Here is the original message:

{{#language:ary|zgh}} gives Moroccan Arabic instead of ⵜⴰⵄⵕⴰⴱⵜ ⵜⴰⵎⵖⵔⵉⴱⵉⵜ, and {{#language:he|zgh}} gives Hebrew instead of ⵜⴰⵄⵉⴱⵔⵉⵜ, same thing for some other language names are untranslated or translated incorrectly. How can this be fixed? And where?--Brahim-essaidi (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Could someone point us in the right direction? - Xbspiro (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xbspiro: may want to try at mw:Extension talk:CLDR - from what I can tell we only copy the CLDR data from further upstream (likely from [1]) so you may need to make sure the data is good there first. — xaosflux Talk 01:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. (It seems that the data we were looking for is here.) - Xbspiro (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xbspiro: see the instructions at translatewiki:CLDR#Localised_language_names. Legoktm (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions/edits without a tag?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T119072

Hi. On the contributions page you can type in tags and just see edits with those tags. Is there a way to do the opposite and see my contributions that don't have certain tags? DemonDays64 (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

not yet ;) - that is feature request phab:T119072 if you would like to follow it. — xaosflux Talk 09:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Until that bug gets fixed, Demon can ask for an query to be run to get the results he wanted, at Wikipedia:Request a query.--Snævar (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. I noticed something yesterday at WP:UAA. There used to be a list of commonly-used edit filter links between the page header and the bot-reported names section, but now they're gone. I found those very handy, so I am just curious as to what happened to them. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they were removed by Taking Out The Trash. --rchard2scout (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted, but have reworded it to put the two public filters first, per TOTT's reasonable concern. I don't believe we have EFH/EFM equivalents of sysop-show. If we were to make those, we could make it even smoother by just wrapping the private ones in those three classes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've created the EFH/EFM user group classes and wrapped the private filters with the appropriate classes. — MusikAnimal talk 18:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lowercase sigmabot III down, usage of a deprecated feature

This bot has not run since October 7, per User talk:Σ#Lowercase sigmabot III seems down. All the noticeboards appear to use the same bot. User:Legoktm believes the failure may be due to mw:MediaWiki 1.37/Deprecation of legacy API token parameters which was implemented on October 7. It appears that User:ClueBot III went down briefly for the same reason but was quickly repaired. Other data can be seen at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#General query. There is a table that shows which bots are up or down at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor#Current status report. I hope that a solution can be found soon for archiving the noticeboards. I am archiving WP:AN3 by hand for the moment. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WD link doesn't works anymore? I can't find it also in preferences. Eurohunter (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurohunter: You mean inline links to Wikidata, like wikidata:Q42 or d:Q42? Or something else? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: No WD link enables links to WD item at every Wikipedia page under the name. Eurohunter (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eurohunter: Like d:User:Yair rand/WikidataInfo.js? That's what I use. I don't see anything like that in User:Eurohunter/common.js. There's also a built-in "Wikidata item" link under "Tools" in the sidebar. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
d:User:Yair rand/WikidataInfo.js is loaded in meta:User:Eurohunter/global.js. I don't know why it fails for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter: I don't know neither I didn't changed anything. Eurohunter (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does it work at other wikis, e.g. simple:Example? If it does then try blanking User:Eurohunter/common.js. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter: I did but it still doesn't works in ENWP and SimpleWP and it works elsewhere. Eurohunter (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Search index

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T293394

Hello, is there a problem with the generation of the search index. I am getting articles that were changed at 11:34 this morning still appearing in search results. An example is List of current National Football League head coaches where the date error was fixed this morning but is still showing in the search results. Regards. Keith D (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith D: can you tell us more? What are the steps you are following, what is the result, what is the expected result? Please note, if your step is to leave wikipedia and use someone else's search engine they may simply be behind in their own updates. — xaosflux Talk 23:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: just using the normal wikipedia search

"CS1 errors: dates" insource:/[a-z]*[\-]*date *\= *[A-Z][a-z]* [0-9]*[\.\,\ ][0-9]/

This still finds the date error which was corrected by the last edit to the article this morning.
Keith D (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith D: think it may have just been a bit slow, is this working as you expect now? — xaosflux Talk 13:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: that particular one has now cleared but it is not working as expected. Edward M. Kopko was modified at 20:53 yesterday but still is reported in the search

"CS1 errors: dates" insource:/[a-z]*[\-]*date *\= *0[0-9] /

though the edit should have removed it from the search results. It must be a general problem as Commons searches are similarly not clearing when categories are changed. Keith D (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: thanks. I have added a Commons example to the ticket. Keith D (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot assessment tool down

It looks like the WP 1.0 bot responsible for updating assessment data is down due to a mediawiki deprecation. The tool has been central to WikiProject work for awhile now. I am not sure how/who to raise the alarm.

it looks like the number or broken bots/tools will grow significantly

Technical question.

Hi. Where do you find the name of the user who created an article before the article was merged or split? I don't see it anywhere on the page statistics. If a page is merged, do both users get credit? If a page is split, does the original page creator still get credit on subsequent split pages? LearnMore (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LearnMore: in general mergers are either done with- or without- technical history merges. If with, the oldest contributor would be listed as just that - the oldest contributor. If without, attribution is generally provided by a link in the edit summary or the talk page. In general splits do not split the revision history - a new page is just started which should reference the prior page for attribution. Of special note, every contributor to any page are equally considered authors, being the "original page creator" doesn't have any special privilege. — xaosflux Talk 13:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-on, as far as citing a Wikipedia page elsewhere, here is an example of how to cite a random page (citing Sara Cwynar) - notice the use of Wikipedia contributors as the author line. — xaosflux Talk 13:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux:Thank you very much for your quick response. The reason I asked is that the statistics page does cite the name of the user who created the page which I think is a nice gesture. Since it is there anyway, I think it should be accurate and truly give credit to the person, or persons, who deserve it. Thank you for your time. Have a nice day. LearnMore (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LearnMore: currently that is derived from the history, there has been some low-priority tasks to think about this more, and you are welcome to contribute at tasks such as phab:T44135. — xaosflux Talk 14:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux:Thank you. And thanks for all you do for Wikipedia! LearnMore (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't add delsort categories to AfD nomination

I've done many of these before, but for some reason, I've been unable to add the relevant delsort catgories to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Little Longer (they should be "Albums and songs" and "Music"). I've tried using the automatic adder, I've tried adding them manually, and nothing seems to work. And of course without the delsort listings, the AfD doesn't show up anywhere for discussion. Have I missed something? Richard3120 (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: it looks like you did in: Special:PermaLink/1049916455. Can you be more specific about what you expected to happen, but didn't? — xaosflux Talk 21:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the actual "categories" are coming from Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD. — xaosflux Talk 21:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Well, underneath the nomination it should say "Note: This discussion has been included in the list of XXXX-related deletion discussions", and the nomination should then show up in the specific AfD deletion sorting pages: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music. Neither of those things happened. Richard3120 (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: in the permalink I posted above, it exactly says Note: This discussion has been included in... twice. As far those sort pages, those are not categories - they are just listings and are updated by a bot, AnomieBOT. Perhaps it is just a bit backlogged? — xaosflux Talk 21:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did wait for exactly that reason... the pages have since updated, and my nomination hasn't appeared. And I still couldn't see the discussion notices, which is why I reverted them because they didn't appear on my screen, either on my laptop or on my mobile phone, so I had no way of knowing whether they had been added or not. It still doesn't explain why, if I had indeed added them, they hadn't appeared on the deletion discussion pages. Richard3120 (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: it appears you are using a personal userscript, User:Fox Wilson/delsort.js - notably the author has been away for 4 years, perhaps it isn't working. Try disabling it. — xaosflux Talk 21:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the reason I reverted and then tried to re-add them manually using {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}}, but that didn't work either. Richard3120 (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have to manually transclude entries to pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. All AnomieBOT does is remove discussions that are closed. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've never had to do that before. Possibly that automatic script no longer works. But the manual addition as stated above didn't show up for me either. I'll try again. Thanks anyway, both of you. Richard3120 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: it appears that some other editors are using User:Enterprisey/delsort which appears to be more recently maintained, perhaps you could try using that one instead of the one you are using now. — xaosflux Talk 22:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would be surprised if Fox Wilson's script is still functional. Enterprisey's definitely is. Izno (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question

Is it possible to run a "what links here" search for two, or more, pages simultaneously so that with one click you can see results for both? If so, will you please publish the code in example so I can use it? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cline: You can use WP:PETSCAN (direct link to PetScan).
If you want pages linking to both (intersection) rather than to either (union), a Cirrus search linksto:Page linksto:"Other page" on the desired namespaces may do the job. Certes (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Script for standardizing reference code?

Is there any user script that standardizes the spacing and date formats within citations? (I know it's a cosmetic edit, but for a few articles I'm trying to perfect it'd be nice.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ProveIt has a "normalize everything" option. Not sure if that fixes the date formats though. – SD0001 (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Combining that and WP:MOSNUMscript for the dates, I was able to get things standardized. I'm not sure if some of the decisions ProveIt makes, like capitalizing "Cite web", are actually the norm, but at least they're consistent now. At some point, we should probably decide what we want our reference-adding tools to do so that we don't end up with some much variation in the code just from people using different tools. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mapframe format

(crossposted from WP:HD) How does one localize the red sign in a mapframe? I've added one at Cumbre Vieja tsunami hazard but the coordinates are waaaay off. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try reordering the values to "coordinates": [-17.50,28.34]. Does that help? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 08:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the coordinates entity expects longitude, latitude, although the examples for <mapframe> at mw:Help:Extension:Kartographer#<mapframe>_usage seem to all use the latitude=37.8013 longitude=-122.3988 order. I think you need to swap your values. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 08:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that worked. Thanks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get rid of this "Start a discussion about [page name]" prompt?

For the last few days, each time I go to a red talk page I am greeted with this annoying prompt. I mean, it friendly for the new editors, ok, but for an old hand like me who visits dozens of new pages a day to stick assessment tags on them, it's an annoying extra click. I don't see any 'don't show it again' option or such. I'll repeat that I don't like to complain about new QoL improvements for newbies and in general, this looks nice but please give us a way to disable this for those of us whose QoL is lowered, not raised, but this. I am not sure how to file a bug report or such about this, so VT colleagues, help :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't without opting out altogether of discussion tools in your preferences. I've already made the same point but no solution offered except "live with it". Nthep (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The prompt seems to only appear when the URL includes &redlink=1, so a stupid way to circumvent it would be to just remove that parameter from talk page redlinks: 
$('[href*="talk:" i][href*="redlink=1"]').each(function() {
  this.href = this.href.replace("&redlink=1", "");
});
Add to your common.js and enjoy. – Rummskartoffel 10:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can. Preferences -> Editing -> Discussion pages -> "Enable quick topic adding". Unchecking this will also get rid of the redlink prompt. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDJ: thank you, is that "Enable quick topic adding" option only related to that banner on redlink pages or is that also going to turn off something else? — xaosflux Talk 13:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It will turn off the "New discussion" tool, of which banner is a part. – SD0001 (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SD0001: ah OK, it doesn't just "show you an inline form for adding new topics" - it also hijacks the newsection and newpage editors. — xaosflux Talk 13:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hint left at MediaWiki:Discussiontools-preference-newtopictool-help. — xaosflux Talk 13:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or do what I did. Go to Preferences → Beta features and make sure that "Discussion tools" is turned off. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bullseye grant proposal

Good afternoon all, I have submitted a Rapid Grant proposal for bullseye, a tool I have been working on to consolidate detailed information about IP addresses into a single view. It is primarily targeted at checkusers and stewards, but is usable by all editors. At the suggestion of one of the grant coordinators, I am informing potentially interested communities about this proposal. I welcome any and all feedback on the proposal. Best, GeneralNotability (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikidataCon 2021

Hi all. I'm posting here as a co-curator of the 'Sister projects' track for WikidataCon 2021, which will take place online on 29-31 October 2021. The conference website is at [2].

Integration with Wikidata is a controversial topic here, and we would like to talk about both the pros and cons of Wikidata integration with the other Wikimedia projects during this conference. Whether you like Wikidata or not, please consider submitting a session proposal to explore the issues that you are most interested in.

You can find information about how to submit a session proposal at [3], and you can access the submission form at [4]. Please submit a session proposal through the Pretalx process so that we can review and schedule it appropriately - and make sure to mark it as a 'Sister projects' track proposal. Please note that we cannot accept a session outside of the Pretalx process. We also encourage you to submit talks to other tracks if you are interested!

Note that the deadline for submitting proposals is the 20th October - sorry for the short notice! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redlink to existing page

Hello! I'm seeing something rather peculiar. In Special:PageHistory/Template:COVID-19 data/data, there are links to User:TolBot/Task 5, a soft redirect to Meta-Wiki, in my bot's edit summaries — but, despite the page existing, the links are red. When I click on a diff, the link is blue, and anywhere outside of an edit summary it's also blue. I've tried with safemode, so I don't think it's me. Can anybody else verify this or help me figure out what's going on? Thanks. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the link in the most recent edit as blue, and the others as red. Moving to the previous 100, all are blue. Filtering by date to exclude today's two changes, all are blue. It looks like a minor bug. Certes (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one "Task 5" blue link at the history of Template:COVID-19 data/data. It is the most recent. The reason it is blue is that the wikitext is [[m:User:TolBot/Task 5|Task 5]] whereas the others omit m:. I tried to purge the history page but of course it only purged the template and that did not help. Weird. I don't see how it's related, but I asked about a red link problem here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was recently an overhaul of how edit summaries ("comments") are formatted on history pages, this might be another regression from that. I would suggest filing a bug in Phabricator for this, as the output clearly is wrong given User:TolBot/Task 5 exists on this wiki. Legoktm (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deal with bare URLs to files

Hi there! I've been working on expanding bare URLs in references recently. However, there have been lots of URLs that point to an external file (PDF, image, etc.), where automatic reference generating cannot work normally to grab information such as titles. Then what can I do to expand those references? Maybe, upload the original files? Or something else? -- UNITE TOGETHER, STRIVE FOR SURVIVAL! 02:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&oldid=1050166242"