Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.88.88.93 (talk) at 19:39, 26 October 2022 (→Systematically check every page of a wiki: re). 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).

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.

Logged but my IP showed up.

While doing this edit, I was logged in, but my IP showed up. Is there an explanation for this? I was definitively logged in. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dominic Mayers I can't tell why it happened, but I've removed your IP address from the page history. — xaosflux Talk 14:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every time your browser accesses the Wikimedia servers, it sends your login cookie. If this cookie fails to arrive, or is corrupted along the way, or is otherwise invalid, you're treated as if you were logged out. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of late, I've found that my login session is only lasting for a day. If I'm making an edit, my session expires, and then I try to submit it, I see the edit window again with a message buried before the edit box saying that I'm logged out. It can be easy to miss this and accidentally submit a change while logged out. isaacl (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl, have you done a WP:BYPASS yet? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Under what circumstances? When I find that the current page shows that I've been logged out? Yes, I typically force a browser reload, and then I just log back in. isaacl (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any time since the problem started. I don't think that forcing a reload is the same thing. (My theory is: logins require working cookies; bypassing removes all cookies, giving you a fresh and hopefully working set.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you used the BYPASS shortcut, I assumed you wanted me to look at the "Bypassing cache" section, which shows how to force a browser reload. Forcing a reload in your browser doesn't remove your cookies; it causes your browser to request the page from the server rather than serving the page from its own internal cache. Yes, I've bypassed my browser's internal cache while viewing Wikipedia pages, probably every day. I'd as soon log in again than remove my cookies (as per the "Cache clearing and disabling" section), which would definitely remove traces of my login session from my browser. isaacl (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dominic Mayers, while it won't solve the issue of staying logged in, if not accidentally spilling your IP is important to you: when you edit using Factotum it will reject any attempt to edit in a state different from the state when the page was loaded. If you were logged in when the page loaded but got logged out somehow, any attempt to edit will also be rejected. Similarly, if you weren't logged in when the page loaded and logged in on another tab, any attempt to edit will fail. It fails with a pop-up error and no option to re-submit, pretty much impossible to miss.
If you actually want to be able to re-submit (and publish your IP) the standard editors are better for this particular situation though. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:COLLAPSE and tables/sections defaulting to collapsed state on mobile app

Is this something the app developers did on their own, or is this something we can correct for in our stylesheets here? See List of NC-17 rated films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for example, which is mostly one large table of content, but which on the mobile app is completely collapsed by default (as are the references). The same thing also appears to happen to infoboxes. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sections have always been collapsed by default on mobile for a few reasons that basically reasonable. And infoboxes have basically always been after the first paragraph, which is what you may be identifying as 'collapsed'. If infoboxes are actually collapsed, I'd be surprised. Izno (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the articles Avengers: Endgame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Proton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the infoboxes defaults to collapsed on the mobile app. The "References" sections are also, against the guidance of the MOS, collapsed. And to clarify, other sections (like other second level sections) do not default to collapsed, and content beyond the infobox is not collapsed. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I misread, you're seeing this in the mobile app? Can't help you there. Izno (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at Avengers: Endgame in Safari on my tiny iPhone, I see the lead, the infobox, and then expandable headers for all of the sections. I don't use the mobile interface a lot, but this looks like what I see in every other article when I use that interface. If you are using a specific app on a specific operating system, state what it is so that other editors have a chance to replicate your viewing conditions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not the mobile website, the mobile app. Izno (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, hence my request to Locke Cole for details. The name of the app? iOS? Android? Something else? What version of each? Help us help you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The official Wikipedia app from the WMF. iOS. 6.9.3 (1980) is the version. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
> Is this something the app developers did on their own
The iOS app has always had this behaviour.
> The "References" sections are also, against the guidance of the MOS, collapsed.
Consider that mobile allows you to tap a reference which brings up a popup with the full reference. Also MAYBE, we should update our guidelines to take into account other form factors and their UX. My Alexa also doesn't spill out the entire article and its entire reference section. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The iOS app has always had this behaviour. That's a shame, so list articles have always been fully collapsed for mobile app users? Consider that mobile allows you to tap a reference which brings up a popup with the full reference. That's true, my major concern when bringing this here initially was the "List"-style articles which often times are 95% table content that, on this app, are fully collapsed for readers. I can't possibly see how that would be desirable, and could see it causing confusion for casual readers just trying to find content and not understanding that it's been auto-collapsed. I also have to wonder if there's not accessibility concerns here. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to wonder if there's not accessibility concerns here. Not in principle, but I just tested it on my phone using VoiceOver, and while the collapsed table can be expanded, there is no indication that the collapsed thingie is an interactive element, so that could be improved. Matma Rex talk 23:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone's reference, here's how the page List of NC-17 rated films looks in the iOS Wikipedia app (on iPhone SE (1st generation)): initially after loading and scrolling down after tapping to expand the table. (@Locke Cole Please provide screenshots when reporting tech issues, especially when it comes to apps that run only on specific devices, as not everyone owns an iPhone.)
This behavior seems to be controlled by the app. Can you clarify what is the relevance of MOS:COLLAPSE to your question? Matma Rex talk 21:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would it help if that table had a MOS:TABLECAPTION, an accessibility requirement? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95 It doesn't seem to make a difference. In fact, the caption is not shown when the table is collapsed; someone should file a bug about this. Testing with the table at YouTube#International and localization: initial view, after expanding.
By the way, I discovered a way to simulate the app experience on desktop: you can view pages formatted for the mobile app under URLs like these:
Note that this shows the tables and infoboxes as expanded on the initial load, unlike the real iOS Wikipedia app; and it also works for the user namespace, even though the real app will actually show the normal mobile web view for them, so you can test changes with only a moderate amount of annoyance. Matma Rex talk 22:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Matma Rex: I guess I sort of expected the behavior to be identical on Android and iOS, and I wasn't aware there were other official Wikipedia apps from the WMF. Apologies for that. I've also learned to avoid uploading screenshots of software, as those are fair-use typically and not allowed outside of article-space. At any rate, thank you for confirming that it's an issue. Is the issue limited to just iOS? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/file/upload/ for quick obvious fair-use uploads like this (Phabricator is the software we use for bug reports). I don't know if it's just iOS, I don't have different phones handy at the moment. Be aware that there's also a third Wikipedia app for KaiOS. Matma Rex talk 04:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what is the relevance of MOS:COLLAPSE to your question? I missed this, but the relevance is that an app produced and provided by the WMF shouldn't actively be undermining our style guides (unless there is a clear technical need). I'd be inclined to submit a bug report about it, but I'd like to see if someone with an Android device can confirm if it's just iOS or both. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this undermines the style guide. The style guide discourages specific methods of collapsing to ensure that all interfaces for reading Wikipedia can display the content. But the app is an interface, and it can make its own decisions. As another example, the mobile web version is another interface, and it collapses all sections to make it easier to navigate articles, and I always thought that this is quite nice. Matma Rex talk 23:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lost ability to delete?

Hi. I'm logged in as myself and I don't seem to have lost my admin rights but I can no longer do deletions on English wikipedia because the option has disappeared from my toolbar. As far as I can see, I haven't changed my preferences, so I'm confused as to what is happening. Any thoughts?Deb (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: What is your skin and what do you normally do to delete? The interface depends on preferences and a toolbar is not the usual way but your definition of "toolbar" may be different. Some of the ways start by clicking a "More", "Page", "csd" or "delete" tab at top of the page, or clicking a link in a template-generated box of a nominated page. Can you delete at Special:DeletePage/User:Deb/sandbox, https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Deb/sandbox&action=delete, and https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Deb/sandbox&safemode=1 (possibly on a "More" tab)? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PrimeHunter Yes, I'm sorry for not being clearer. "Delete" used at one time to appear alongside the "edit" option at the top of the page, and in fact it still does, but only for a split second before being replaced with a smaller range of options, including "Page", which is what I've been using more recently. Earlier today, the "Delete" option did not appear in the drop-down; now it's back. I do not think I am imagining things, but clearly the problem has resolved itself. Deb (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your "Page" tab is probably made by "MoreMenu" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. I see no recent edits to any of the JavaScript pages it uses but many scripts can have glitches. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb: You didn't name your skin but in some skins the script moves the delete link from a "More" tab to the "Page" tab. Look for a "More" tab if it happens again. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PrimeHunter Thanks, I'll try and remember that. Deb (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PrimeHunter The problem is coming and going now, and I can't find a "More" tab. I'm using "Modern". I'll try changing the skin and hope that it has some effect. Deb (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb: That's why I asked for the skin as the first thing. Modern is no longer officially supported and you can only change back to it via a special preferences link. Modern has no "More" tab. By default it has a "delete" link at top of the page. The MoreMenu gadget moves it to a "page" link. Both work for me. I guess Special:DeletePage and other ways still work if the interface link is missing. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PrimeHunter Both of those links were missing from the top of the page, but delete sometimes reappeared. Finally figured out that I was only using "Modern" on English-language Wikipedia, which is why it wasn't a problem elsewhere. Still no idea why it should change by the minute just because it is unsupported though! Thanks for your help. Deb (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still using Modern and I'm not having any issues as Deb describes. Nthep (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gadgets like MoreMenu are scripts which run in your own browser after every page load to change the loaded page, e.g. adding or moving elements. This sometimes fails. Many scripts run in a sometimes random order and the order can influence whether it works. I wouldn't report it to the MoreMenu maintainers when Modern is unsupported and will be completely removed at some time. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page FAQ not appearing on mobile

Hi, apologies if this is the wrong spot. I'm using Vector legacy. On mobile the FAQ list on talk pages like Talk:Homeopathy doesn't appear at all on mobile. Is there something that can fix this? Newystats (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is actively being worked on, see phab:T312309. Izno (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Newystats (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Newystats, for now if click "View as Wikipage" and then click the small top text "about this page", you will get the FAQ and other notices. Slywriter (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is a creative signature with 3+5 tildes allowed?

It was brought to my attention that Paine Ellsworth has a very creative signature that consists of ~~~&nbsp;<small>~~~~~</small>.
This puts the timestamp within a small tag while the rest remains normal-sized. WP:SIG doesn't seem to specifically disallow it, though it does generally suggest using 4 tildes. The issue with the creative signature is that tools and bots might get confused by it, not expecting the timestamp to be contained in its own element.
Is this permissible or not? Should we add a note to WP:SIG to clarify if/why this is(n't) allowed/recommended? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This tool appears to show that Paine Ellsworth's signature complies with MediaWiki's current requirements. Sometimes their usage runs afoul of MOS:FONTSIZE (nested small tags), but I don't think putting a time stamp inside of tags will confuse any well programmed bots. Signatures often end up inside of <div>...</div>, <small>...</small>, or other tags. Is there evidence of bots being confused by such formatting? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of my main concerns when I tested the sig many moons ago was if it would trigger notifications, and it does. I have a couple of other sigs I use sometimes, but they don't trigger noties so I don't use them very often. The main sig I use, which amounts to ~~~&nbsp;<small>~~~~~</small> and which I apply with TemplateScript, an awesome tool, does trigger noties, so I haven't hesitated to use it. And by the way, I use TemplateScript to apply rcat templates, the {{Talk page of redirect}} template and a few other templates. It has saved me so much editing time! Highly recommend it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 05:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should also mention that I use that same sig on Commons and several other WP wikis, and it's never triggered any problems nor errors. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 05:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jonesey95, that tool only checks the adjustable part (the three tilde part), the small tags for the timestamp are not considered there.
Signatures often end up inside of <div>...</div>, <small>...</small>, or other tags.
Whole signatures, yes, but very rarely the timestamp individually.
Is there evidence of bots being confused by such formatting?
I don't have any evidence of bots getting confused, though I'd imagine an archiver bot could miss these timestamps which could theoretically result in early archiving. My own script, Factotum, got slightly confused by it but this will be resolved. (if it isn't already, I need to test a bit more to be sure) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh sure. I don't really like it, but don't see any problems with it. Reply-tool works with it, and if bots have a problem with it - that is the bot's problem. — xaosflux Talk 13:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Xaosflux, I consider it a matter of pros and cons. Pro: a small number of people (one?) can customize their signature in unexpected ways. Cons: can affect readability, needs to be taken into consideration/tested by every script author and bot operator that works with signatures, can be confusing because timestamps normally have no styling. And it's a small-tag now, but if this is acceptable it's a matter of time until someone puts their timestamp in sup or sub tags. Or in <span style="color:red"> which would make me unhappy as it would force me to process all span tags when looking for signatures. Currently dd, dl, ul, li and a few other bits are enough, but span can add quite a bit as it's very common. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There are plenty of instances of signature time stamps wrapped in <sup>...</sup> and other tags, and they do not seem to have caused problems yet. What is the actual (non-hypothetical) problem here? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It is common for an entire comment, including signature to be inside of SMALL tags, and we already have a do not make your signature so small that it is difficult to read rule, a single small/sub/sup isn't generally considered "too small". We also already have a guideline that the timestamp format must be the normal format (i.e. (HH:MM, D MM YYYY (UTC)) ). I don't see any special "technical" problems with this that we need to deal with here at VPT. That the formatting of one persons comment interferes with customization that some select editors use isn't a very strong argument, a stronger argument would be that it makes things problematic for everyone. If you want to propose new restrictions to signatures, please start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Signatures and properly advertise it. — xaosflux Talk 17:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, @Alexis Jazz you are wrapping your own signature, including the timestamp in a span yourself above, should you be stopped? — xaosflux Talk 17:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Xaosflux, feel free to start a discussion about that. But for what's it worth, my signature isn't split. And if anyone needs to select these with CSS it's cheap because it has a class. The goal of my span is to resolve the shortcomings of regular signatures (lack of a machine-readable date, username and pagename) while including the traditional four tildes within. Signatures with split 3+5 tildes are purely for cosmetic reasons.
      It is common for an entire comment, including signature to be inside of SMALL tags,
      That's less of an issue as the signature isn't split.
      If you want to propose new restrictions to signatures
      I'm just asking. If this is considered okay, we could consider adding a note to WP:SIG. If it might not be, we could consider a proposal on restrictions.
      There are plenty of instances of signature time stamps wrapped in <sup>
      @Jonesey95, The search link actually times out with incomplete results (31 results or so). Restricted to article talk [1] I get 51 results. Excluding User:CrowzRSA I get 27. I found a 2006 IP comment on Talk:Carl Craig, AxG on Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 4 (Diff 95767573) in 2006, 8 comments by Balthazar in 2007 and 2008. None of the others are signatures. I'm not quite convinced yet there are "plenty of instances". Signature splitting isn't very common.
      What is the actual (non-hypothetical) problem here?
      It's a possible issue for developers who get one more quirk they need to test/work around and can reduce performance in some cases as the parentElement of timestamps becomes unpredictable. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      FWIW, just like the one above, I don't "like" your signature, but I also don't really care that much - ensuring that they are human readable is much more important then that they are machine readable to me. — xaosflux Talk 13:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Xaosflux, my opinion would be the reverse: make them machine readable. That's the hard part, if they are machine readable they can easily be made human-readable. The other way around is much harder.
      But let's agree to disagree on that one. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it really matter as long as you can tell who wrote the message and the bot can tell when the message was written it is all good. I can't see a reason why you regularly need to read the timestamp of someone else. Let people do what they want. Terasail[✉️] 18:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If such formatting were used in the statement of an RfC, it would cause Lint errors on the RfC listing pages. This is because Legobot copies the text of the RfC statement, the signature (if any) and the first valid timestamp. It takes the end of the timestamp as the string "(UTC)"; so if there is a closing tag such as </small> (as used by Paine Ellsworth) or </span> (as used by Alexis Jazz), that tag would not be copied to the RfC listings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a case of that bot making a bad assumption... — xaosflux Talk 19:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I've seen people, myself included, putting an "edited on" statement (timestamp included) inside <small> tags. In which case too, the bot will not give the appropriate results. Correct me if I'm wrong, I believe User:RMCD bot compiles the opening statements along with the additional markup succeeding (UTC) which would be more ideal for such purposes. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 11:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right about RMCD bot, because I've relisted many move requests as well as opened some and without any timestamp malformity errors. Haven't thrown any errors with RfC closures, RfD closures, Closure request closures, MRV closures or any other types of discussions/surveys in which I've participated, and I've been using the small tags with my timestamp for years. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 12:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redrose64, if I were to guess, I'd think this bot would detect/select the end of the comment by looking for a timestamp. That's not quite ideal, as mentioned people sometimes post timestamps that aren't part of a signature. They also sometimes add a "P.S." after a signature. The bot should select the whole line. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should accept it as long as it meets the following basic criteria:
  1. Displays the output of ~~~~~ in such a way that would follow accessability requirements for the user name
  2. Our bots can understand it correctly
  3. It's acceptable under MediaWiki's current requirements
Animal lover |666| 19:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Animal lover 666 your #2 is completely arbitrary; we have 298 bots, and any number of them can be created in the future. Bots should work around humans, not the other way around. Now if this was breaking the interface or even extensions, I'd be much more supportive of restrictions. — xaosflux Talk 13:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, working around humans is a stupid amount of work. That's why I'm not a fan of overly creative signatures: things are difficult enough as it is. :-( — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In an ideal world yes, bots should work around humans. But also humans should not go out of their way to make things difficult for bot authors - it's a partnership! Bot authors and maintainers are in short supply, I think it's reasonable to ask people to follow normal signature formats (even if it's not strictly against a written policy) to make things easier rather than forcing every bot to implement signature parsing systems.
My take on this specific case is "please don't" and a note that if tools don't work for you, that's your fault. And other people might get annoyed at you for that, especially if it affects different "easy reply" tools. Legoktm (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Legoktm, Jonesey95, after further analyzing the issue that was reported I found this and I do believe there is an issue here.
I had already added an exception just for Ellsworth. (I know zero other active users who split their signatures, they might exist, but I don't know them) I had forgotten about the exception but it was in the code comments. The exception checked one link in the parentElement, the one closest to the timestamp. This was sufficient for Ellsworth, but @Qwerfjkl (the reporter) also loaded a script, User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/talkback that adds more links. So detection failed.
I have now "solved" this by searching more links in the parentElement, but this increases the risk of false positives. Typically when people post timestamps that aren't signatures they are either encapsulated in their own tag (like small or sup) or surrounded by more plain text. When there's more plain text, the textNode in question is typically realistically too long for a signature timestamp and can be rejected on that basis. When the timestamp has it's own element, it can be rejected because there's no username in that element.
That's where Paine Ellsworth comes in. The timestamp having its own element can no longer be used as a reason to reject it as a possible signature. Now for the real issue: how does one tell the difference between the following?
:@[[User:Jonesey95]], this isn't a signature. Edit: but how would you know? Edited <sup>17:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)</sup>
:The following IS a signature. [[User:Paine]] <small>17:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)</small>
Without split signatures I can just reject these. Now I have two choices: get false positives or fail to detect Paine's comments. Is there any other way?
FYI, DiscussionTools generates false positives in such cases. If split signatures would be disallowed the false positive rate could be reduced for DiscussionTools, Factotum and any other easy-reply tools. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old" only lists October 8, 2022

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old only lists October 8, 2022. Can this please be fixed? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: Didn't you already point this out at Wikipedia:Help desk#Old AFD only has listings for October 8, 2022? Someone else has already notified the bot operator, and they're on it. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I thought it may be prudent to post this on a more public forum. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some of the refs on USS Scorpion (SSN-589) throwing Harv errors?

Resolved

I have been trying and trying this morning to figure out why four sources (delineated as "Further reading") in this article are throwing "Harv error/CITEREF" messages. Can someone among all you Village pump/citation wizards take a look and tell me what the problem is?!? Maybe fix one of them and I'll take care of the rest... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because they are cited using sfnp with the target being under the Further reading section. Further reading is meant for sources which aren't cited, and the friendly scripts that give you reference errors count that as a error.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this problem has been resolved. There are zero harv errors as of this time stamp. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone! Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia down for a couple minutes just now

Kept getting nothing but "upstream connect error or disconnect/reset before headers. reset reason: overflow". Had to keep trying just to get it to post this.... Abductive (reasoning) 03:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive, phab:T301505. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I figured that it was a continuing problem, but given that it is Friday night/Saturday morning, I thought should document it here in case nobody else saw it. Abductive (reasoning) 06:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petscan depth

There is depth 100 for Auto racing category and it can't detect all pages from subcategory Formula One. How to get all new pages from this category? Eurohunter (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've only got depth set to 1 in your first query. You need at least 3 to get from Category:Auto racing to Category:Formula One (for example, Auto racing > Auto racing series > World auto racing series > Formula One; there are two other routes). —Cryptic 01:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic: I often want to know why a subcat or article is indirectly in a category where it seems not to belong. Is there a category route tool: something with the functionality of this hack but more elegant and flexible? Certes (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used a more concise version of the same hack - quarry:query/68258, following up with the same for the parent categories. —Cryptic 14:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a version that shows the whole route in one query. Doing it manually was just as easy for depth 3, but depth 7 as in your example wouldn't have been. —Cryptic 14:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll bookmark that. WITH RECURSIVE is a wonderful feature that I keep forgetting to use. Certes (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN checksum error

Something squirrelly seems to be going on with the Bearss 1991 cite at Battle of Lake Providence. It's flagging an isbn error, but I'm pulling that exact isbn from the copyright information on my print copy of the book. I'm assuming the publisher used a non-standard isbn. Is there a way to suppress the error in the article? Hog Farm Talk 05:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher probably didn't calculate the checksum correctly, I've seen that happen with older books. You can put the ISBN between (( and )), that'll make the Cite template accept the ISBN 'as-written', without any error checking. --rchard2scout (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist complexity

Hi, I have a watchlist of about 8500 pages; I am sitting on it with the "500 changes, 3 days, group results by page" options. There's six active filters. I don't use the live updates. Last time I was logged in, 2-3 weeks ago, it seemed fine. Now it is bogged down and every action I take is slow. There's been a Chrome update since then; has the Enhanced Watchlist page gained any complexity or size in terms of scripting or tooling behind the scenes, that might cause the slowdown? My CPU is an i5 (2018) and I've got 16GB of RAM. Elizium23 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but I fixed a slow-down by adopting a new strategy. Keep your watchlist settings and put up with the fact that it will be slow the first time. I have a browser bookmark for the URL with the right settings. However, when you want to refresh, change the period to perhaps 6 hours and use Show. For the rest of your session, you can refresh that and it will be much faster. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MoreMenu customisation

Something is wrong with my MoreMenu customisation at lines 25-34, see meta:User:CX Zoom/customised/MoreMenu.js. But, I don't know what is going wrong that it doesn't even work. Can someone please help? Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CX Zoom: Do you use the Modern skin? If so, see #Lost ability to delete? above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I use the default Vector. Also, all other MoreMenu links work, and the lines 25-34 I added just today, so maybe I'm messing something up there and don't know how to fix that. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
config.page.encodedName is encoded by encodeURIComponent(), which encodes colons, slashes, etc. unlike mw.util.wikiUrlencode(), so the colon is %3A not :. And not sure what .join('.') is supposed to do, as it would replace a colon with a period if the template name without the namespace prefix includes a colon. Nardog (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Well, you see, that is what a coding illiterate gets after swifting through dozens of online material, none of which directly deal with the task in question. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, I forgot to mention that it works perfectly as expected now. Again, thank you very much! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Resolved
 – Conflict between personal user scripts/extensions/gadgets. — xaosflux Talk 20:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, anyone who could help me solve the problem of inline references' preview - I get three kinds of previews, one of which covers ref number so I can't click on it and go directly to the reflist to check whatever interests me, regardless of what I see in preview. I tried to check and uncheck various combos in my preferences and global preferences, but I am still not able to shut down this one, annoying kind of preview, which, by the way, appeared just recently (few years ago). Also, the simplest and probably default version of preview (which is most clear and doesn't cover ref-number), actually appears extremely rarely and it does not look like in Reference Tooltips , it look like a link preview and it lack that options/preferences link under gear icon. Anyway, if someone could offer a lifeline, I am drowning here with this annoying ref-preview. ౪ Santa ౪99° 18:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have Reference Previews in Beta Features enabled? Ruslik_Zero 19:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's locked, I can't uncheck the box in beta tab. ౪ Santa ౪99° 20:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Santasa99 can you try to go to this link and see if you still can't uncheck that box? If you are using a mobile device please also try selecting desktop mode. — xaosflux Talk 21:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am on laptop, and your link send me to Prefereces-Beta (tab) where the box is checked but locked so I am unable to uncheck it. Why is locked - maybe under some other tab it is checked sort of originally, and that is where it should be unchecked. However, I looked everywhere, and tried to uncheck, most of all under Gadgets, but nothing. I must note that many of the boxes under Editing tab are also locked, only place where all the boxes and buttons are unlocked for clicks are those under Gadgets. ౪ Santa ౪99° 23:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Santasa99 under beta, see if you have "Automatically enable most beta features" enabled at the very top, and if you can uncheck that to unlock that page. — xaosflux Talk 23:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I haven't - "Automatically enable most beta features" is unchecked whole this time. Now I am starting to fear this is some f-up with Java, although I have enabled Java for wikipedia.org in my Edge. ౪ Santa ౪99° 01:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Under Beta features, my Content Translation is also checked and locked, but IP Information, which I checked yesterday is unlocked and I could uncheck the box. ౪ Santa ౪99° 01:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And under Editing tab, of all the checked boxes half is locked, half is not.--౪ Santa ౪99° 01:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the locked check boxes could be things that you set under your global preferences. Graham87 03:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Santasa99, try unchecking them using this from Global Preferences. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People, I have found the way to unlock References Preview under both Gadgets and Beta and to uncheck it, however, this does not help shut down that annoying kind of ref preview. It persists whatever I do. Some kind of total preferences reset, and default preview is a goal. ౪ Santa ౪99° 06:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And after desperate "Reset settings: Restore all default preferences (in all sections)" under User Profile tab, nothing happened, preview that obscuring ref No. is still my main preview. Santasa99 (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux, do you have any suggestion where else could I seek advice on this problem, it would be very much appreciated. ౪ Santa ౪99° 15:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turn off everything in User:Santasa99/common.js and User:Santasa99/vector.js and see if it changes. — xaosflux Talk 15:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, xaosflux. I will try this in an hour or so, and i will get back to you here, if you don't mind, whatever happens. ౪ Santa ౪99° 16:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, @Xaosflux, this helped :-))). Thank you a thousand times, thank you so much!!! I do not know what if anything is done to the Preferences settings by this move, if this changed anything there, but at this point I don't care. ౪ Santa ౪99° 17:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I simply deleted all entries (all lines of script) in both, and I hope that's OK? I mean, it won't create some other trouble because deleting it all. ౪ Santa ౪99° 17:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Santasa99: The only issue with blanking your .js is that scripts you loaded in there such as User:Headbomb/unreliable will no longer work for you. I would try restoring the scripts you still use one at a time, reverting any addition that causes problems, so you can enjoy as many useful scripts as possible and identify which one is breaking something for you. Certes (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Certes. Yes, I realized that I don't need to give up other useful scripts. I will certainly test every script individually next time, to know what exactly is doing - especially not to use one that caused me a problem with ref-preview :-). Thank you again, and thanks to all who tried and helped. Cheers. ౪ Santa ౪99° 19:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 is removing access-date from citations

@Kautilya3: is inappropriately removing access-date from news citations on Wikipedia pages Special:Diff/1117819316 On being asked to revert, they are citing document pages that do not support their action. [2]. Is he correct in removing? Kindly ask them to self revert and restore the access-dates. Venkat TL (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "document page" in question is template:citation, which says in italics: "Not required for linked documents that do not change." What is unclear about that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
quoting from the page "Access dates are not required for links to published research papers or published books." @Kautilya3 you have removed access dates from the news sites that update their articles all the time, especially Indian ones. Please self revert. Venkat TL (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the examples provided, aren't all of the citations already archived, their content links therefore rather immutable and the access date largely irrelevant? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that access-date was useful for tracking down versions of a website, for example at archive.org if needed. Also, if an update is issued to the website. The place to ask would be at the talk of {{cite news}} which redirects to Help talk:Citation Style 1. If the sites are already archived, the access date is useful to confirm that the correct archive date is used. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq that is my understanding too. @Kautilya3 is yet to respond what is being achieved by removing a useful cite parameter. Venkat TL (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The pages that have changed on the news website are not being cited. Currently it is the archived versions that are being cited, which will never change. No access-date needed, which will only serve to confuse readers. The archive-date is what matters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 Those links are neither from "research papers or published books", your removal has no basis. News sites sometimes update the article after several months/years. Accessdate is very much needed for them. Please self revert. Venkat TL (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have two dates, Access-date for when the original URL was accessed to include the information, and archive-date, for when the archival version was created. For any online source that you've archived ( eg where url= is used), you need both, neither are optional. Masem (t) 12:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you need both, neither are optional is a false statement per quite some discussion at Help talk:CS1. |archive-date= is quite sufficient.
That said, I do not understand why this discussion is at WP:VPT. The issue is not technical in nature. Either this requires personal dispute resolution, or the more appropriate place would indeed be at Help talk:CS1. Izno (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems wrong to not include the original accessdate, since archive creation can be automated. Eg: an article is initially created on Jan 1, and incorporated into WP on Jan 15. A substantive change is made on the article on Feb 1 which technically would require an extensive change on WP, but which is never caught. An archive is made March 1. To the reader, without the access-date, it looks like our use of the article reflects a completely different picture of the article presented at the archive-date, and thus harms our reputation. The access-date inclusion would make it clear to a reader that the info was captured before the change, and thus can flag the passage for appropriate updating. Masem (t) 01:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a behavioral issue, not an inherent flaw with removing an access date where an archived date is already provided.
That aside, even in your scenario the error can still be identified, as generally the kinds of external webpages that have substantive change that we typically need to care about (news websites, typically) have their own publication date and amendment date(s), in which case the citation date will not match the source date. Pages which don't have a publication date are suspect generally too from a reliable source perspective. Izno (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And to point out, we need the access-date info there so that if someone goes back to check and finds an update has been made post-access-date that potentially creates a problem in our summary of it, our article and that citation can be updated. Masem (t) 12:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: When Template:Citation#URL says Not required for linked documents that do not change, it means the documents do not change, typically because they are printed books or research papers, and the link goes to a website which displays the document. The citation should have enough information to uniquely identify the actual document in such cases. Any news site, archive site or other website can close, change url's or remove content so we want access dates for those to help track down disappearing or changing content. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page with lots of election box templates is buggered

Constituency election results in the 1923 United Kingdom general election uses lots of Template:Election box begin and Template:Election box candidate with party link and other related templates. It is OK up to Hamilton, but buggered to hell after that. Does anybody understand what is wrong with it and how to fix it? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've exceeded the post-expand include size limit. I can't think of any easy fix, but maybe someone else can. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know a technical fix but you might have to split the results somehow (by country?) and then transclude them into the article. Nthep (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The post-expand include size is about how much you transclude in total including transclusions made by called templates without being in the output. It becomes larger if you move content to other pages and transclude it from there, unless you use partial transclusion to only transclude some of it like a summary. The page is currently 14% over the limit. The England section alone uses 91% of the limit so it could be split to another article. 9% isn't much room if more content is added or the used templates become more complex. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It rendered fully at the latest Internet Archive snapshot on 21 August 2020. The wikitext was similar and a preview of the version at the time now breaks at the same spot after Hamilton, so the used templates did increase their footprint since then. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's just WAY to big. Try to format more like the other pages (e.g. List of MPs elected in the 1924 United Kingdom general election), and/or use a much simpler table. So many of those template calls are also invoking modules. — xaosflux Talk 15:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One solution here would be to re-write those templates to be entirely lua. Using a template that calls a lua module results in double-counting the output of the module. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Special:ExpandTemplates might help. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have split out England to Constituency election results in England in the 1923 United Kingdom general election. Feel free to unsplit if you make it fit in one article. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2022-43

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

Recent changes

  • There have been some minor visual fixes in Special:Search, regarding audio player alignment and image placeholder height. Further details are in T319230.
  • On Wikipedias, a new preference has been added to hide article thumbnails in Special:Search. Full details are in T320337.

Problems

  • Last week, three wikis (French Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia) had read-only access for 25 minutes. This was caused by a hardware problem. [3]

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 October. It will be on all wikis from 27 October (calendar).
  • Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 25 October at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 27 October at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
  • Starting on Wednesday, a new set of Wikipedias will get "Add a link" (Assamese Wikipedia, Bashkir Wikipedia, Balinese Wikipedia, Bavarian Wikipedia, Samogitian Wikipedia, Bikol Central Wikipedia, Belarusian Wikipedia, Belarusian (Taraškievica) Wikipedia, Bulgarian Wikipedia, Bhojpuri Wikipedia, Bislama Wikipedia, Banjar Wikipedia, Bambara Wikipedia, Bishnupriya Wikipedia, Breton Wikipedia, Bosnian Wikipedia, Buginese Wikipedia, Buryat Wikipedia, Indonesian Wikipedia). This is part of the progressive deployment of this tool to more Wikipedias. The communities can configure how this feature works locally. [4]
  • Starting on Wednesday October 26, 2022, the list of mentors will be upgraded at wikis where Growth mentorship is available. The mentorship system will continue to work as it does now. The signup process will be replaced, and a new management option will be provided. Also, this change simplifies the creation of mentorship systems at Wikipedias. [5][6][7]
  • Pages with titles that start with a lower-case letter according to Unicode 11 will be renamed or deleted. There is a list of affected pages at m:Unicode 11 case map migration. More information can be found at T292552.
  • The Vector 2022 skin will become the default across the smallest Wikipedias. Learn more.

Future changes

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

MediaWiki message delivery 21:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dump analysis

I have a question at Wikipedia:Request a query#Number of refs in the median article that it sounds like requires someone who knows how to handle the database dumps.

My goal is some very basic, ballpark descriptive statistics about how many refs are in the median/typical Wikipedia article (e.g., any non-redirect page in the mainspace). I expect the answer to be a single digit number. Unfortunately, my question doesn't appear to be amenable to a Quarry query, so I'm bringing it here for help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, this would probably be very expensive as some references are generated by templates. ({{Infobox YouTube personality}} for example) If you'd settle for the number of occurrences of /<([Rr]ef|REF)[ >]/ it would probably be more realistic.
I wrote down some details at Wikipedia:Database download#How to use multistream? years ago. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing between icon and sister project header

Moved to MediaWiki talk:Search-interwiki-custom
— xaosflux Talk 10:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsable sections

Resolved

Can somebody kindly collapse all the sections of Projects founded, Contests and challenges, Featured content, Good articles and DYKs and shiny things at User:Dr. Blofeld so they're neatly in column sections shrunk by default and just the headers showing? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I converted the top section in a way that somewhat replicates the previous look. If you want to preserve every little style choice, like the font and the borders, there are probably additional style changes you can make using the parameters available at {{cot}}. If you like how it looks, you can convert the other sections using the same method. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Jonesy, I've replicated that for the others but it's now shrunk into a smaller frame, can you set it at the width of the page but in default shrunk as it is now? Also there's a gap between Contests and featured sections for some reason..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. I added a width parameter to the outer table. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid user name makes an edit

Can someone explain how 12.2.142.xxx managed to make an edit (create a page in fact) if that is not a valid user name? SpinningSpark 13:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this a lot on older pages. I'm not exactly sure why it shows that however I notice that it usually appears on articles that have been around for a while. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark that was an imported edit rescued from nost:French fries. — xaosflux Talk 13:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the edit imported? I'm curious. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very old edits were made when Wikipedia was on UseModWiki, not everything was automatically imported. Graham87 has some good background on this, see User:Graham87/Import#Nostalgia_Wikipedia. — xaosflux Talk 14:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! I didn't know that there was something before MediaWiki (altho it makes sense). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Well that particular edit was imported way back in September 2002, which can be determined because it has a revision ID number less than 300,000; the edit I imported was the next one. I just imported the very first edit to the page from the August 2001 database dump, available here.
@Spinningspark: As for IP addresses with the last octet obscured, that's indeed how they were presented in most of 2001 and early 2002. There's an explanation at Wikipedia:Username policy#UseModWiki-era anonymous users. Graham87 07:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update! — xaosflux Talk 09:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toolforge database replication has stopped

Just a heads-up: the replication lag to the toolforge database is currently around 1:30h, and increasing. That means that database reports etc. will be outdated until this is fixed. I'm assuming the database team is aware of this already, but pinging Ladsgroup anyway, just in case. And maybe he can give an estimate to when it'll be resolved? --rchard2scout (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rchard2scout. Hi, yes. It's due to phab:T321562 (a hardware issue). We are waiting for people at the datacenter to take a look. It might take a while, probably a day or two. ASarabadani (WMF) (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now it is at 8:24. I always come here to check because I can never find my link to the replag page. Maybe it should be put in the FAQs at the top of this page. Half of the time I come to this noticeboard, it is about checking on the replag. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now it is 16+ hours! Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and like stated, it likely will go up to “probably a day or two” —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think they meant that's how long it will take to fix, not how much of a lag it will go up to. But it is up to 29 hours now. Liz Read! Talk! 18:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely for every hour it isn't fixed the lag will increase by an hour? — Qwerfjkltalk 19:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice for Wikipedia:Contents/feedback

Resolved
 – Edit notice was added. — xaosflux Talk 13:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been getting new and unregistered users not responding to any of the questions and then pressing Publish changes without giving any meaningful feedback. I would like to implement an editnotice that encourages users to give feedback, but cannot leave everything blank and that it will be removed if it is posted without doing anything. If you look at the history of the page HERE, you will see what's been going on. It is frustrating that people are not using this page for its intended purpose. Interstellarity (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine, just drop an edit request at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Contents/feedback. — xaosflux Talk 10:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Thanks, I have put in an edit request. I was hoping that you could look over the editnotice to see if it looks good or otherwise be improved. I want it to grab the attention of newcomers so that they are discouraged from implementing blank feedback. Interstellarity (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page history, I'm creating it at the earliest. But feel free to implement and/or propose more improvements to it. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cite web}} is showing an error where one doesn't exist

Resolved
 – (sic) code was added. — xaosflux Talk 13:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Solo (Frank Ocean song), a citation from {{Cite web}} includes an article from someone named "Chris Author", hence: last=Author is one of the parameters. {{Cite web}} doesn't like this and claims that it's a generic name and identifies this as an error. I don't see how to fix this. Evidently, there is some error-correcting mode for identifiers like DOIs or ISBNs, but not names. Can anyone help here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No templates in headers...
Does the linked help text not answer what to do about this?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is now fixed. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Systematically check every page of a wiki

I've recently started being active again on the Icelandic Wikipedia. We only have 55.000 articles. So I had the idea, would it be possible to check every article to see if there are obvious mistakes or outdated information. I've already found a few by using "random article" feature. I did a quick search for a tool that would help me be more systematic and also would allow other people to join the effort. The tool should be able to cache all the articles in the Wiki, list them up, and then users can mark when they have checked the quality of the article. Features that the tool could have is to list them in priority, articles with only one edit could have higher priority, also articles with no edits for 5 years could have priority ect. Maybe users can mark if the article is time sensitive, meaning it's about a person that is alive or a city ect. That way it can be checked again once all 55.000 articles have been checked. Is this a crazy idea? Is a similar tool available? Is anyone crazy enough to program it? Steinninn 16:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may be best to start small, perhaps by checking living persons. I do not see an Icelandic equivalent of the English Category:Living people; perhaps you could simulate one by looking at articles in (the immediate subcategories of) is:Flokkur:Fólk fætt á 20. öld or is:Flokkur:Fólk fætt á 21. öld that are not in (the immediate subcategories of) is:Flokkur:Fólk dáið á 20. öld or is:Flokkur:Fólk dáið á 21. öld. PetScan or Quarry can help with that. Here is a PetScan query. For record keeping, you could simply list the articles on a maintenance page, striking them off as they are checked. When you finish, you may need to list the articles again to identify any new pages which have not yet been checked. Certes (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a coding guy but I think this could be done as a bot+javascript task. A bot compiles list of all articles, their creation timestamp, last edit timestamp and with a column for verification timestamp. When, an article isn't verified at all or the last edit time is after verification time, it shows up as out of date. The "verification time" can be manually edited or updated via javascript. The list page can have appropriate protection level to ensure that they aren't vandalised. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This use case is kind of why mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs exists and is deployed at a few wikis in its "review everything" mode. The wikis where it is deployed like that have issues keeping up, but it is an option and is basically already developed, it just needs deployment. It won't help review what's there today of course, but would take care of future changes to review. Izno (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your replies. It looks like FlaggedRevs is not being maintained. I will try this PetScan query, looks promising. Let me know if anyone has any other ideas. --Steinninn 18:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PetScan's "Page properties" tab has a "Last edit" field, to limit the output to recently changed pages. It may be useful in future, after you have checked all pages once and want to look only at pages which have changed. Certes (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have experience with wiki software, but it seems to me that there are many superficial similarities between MediaWiki and a multi-user transactional database system. If this is so, a back-end for what you are asking already exists (assuming pages are treated as records and page edits as record revisions), the related table is obviously live and accessible by database admins. If you ask kindly and persuasively, someone may decide to make a facility to extract a read-only subset available. I understand you don’t want a dump, but an updatable list of certain records (pages). I believe that is the most efficient way, although I have been involved in technology long enough to know it may be unattainable. Off-topic: Years ago, I had an idea to ask MediaWiki devs to include a Citation engine, a back-end in the core software itself. Seemed like a logical idea: if this is an anonymously edited, multi-user data entry system, it should have in its core some basic validation tools. A short time at VP and the related talk pages quickly disabused that notion. But who knows? You may have better luck. 65.88.88.93 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&oldid=1118393331"