Where are the pages that tell how to fix them? Can those pages be linked from these faux category pages? When I go to Special:LintErrors/pwrap-bug-workaround, for example, the description of the problem is ... lacking, and there is no explanation of how to fix whatever the problem is. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those look like a good start. I looked at the three high-priority pages and expanded the self-closed tag page to make it more helpful.
Questions about how these new pages work: Have you considered applying some kind of sorting to the Special pages? How do I add the list to my watchlist to see when something new appears on one of them? When I am trying to fix a page, how do I use Preview to find out if my edit will fix the problem? I am used to tracking categories, which have straightforward answers to all of those questions. Also, why does Dexter (season 7) show up in the Special page for self-closed tags but not in the self-closed tag category? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will respond two two of your questions which I can answer right away. (1) Reg using Preview, you need the ParserMigration tool enabled in your preferences. One thing we could do is perhaps to add an edit link with the parser-migration preview. But, till such time, you can replace action=edit with action=parsermigration-edit. (2) As for Dexter (season 7), there is broken markup in that section that trips up Parsoid causing it to flag the page for a self-closed tag linter output. See Dexter (season 7)#External_links for the broken output. That particular transclusion that linter identifies generates ''Dexter''<span class="nowrap" style="padding-left:0<wbr/>.1em;">&<wbr/>#39;<<wbr/>/span>s and Parsoid gets confused by that jumble and thinks that there is a span self-closing tag. This is an edge case. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes, Jonesey95. Let me tell you what I'm thinking: there will be several pages to fix in the next months. I don't know that people with a certain expertise like you can get all of that done. My goal is involving less tech-minded people like me as well - I do not need or care much about the details: I just want to know what I have to do to help. "Change X with Z", "Delete Y", is an example of straightforward instructions I can follow. Right now, such instructions look a bit buried in a sea of details. I would like them to be way more evident - and standardised. Currently, it is obvious that the 2 explanation pages can't be transcluded in the FAQ section - it'd be a mess. Maybe the FAQ page only needs a TL;DR for each of those. Appreciate your thoughts and suggestions. Elitre (WMF) (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I love simple "if this, then do that" instructions when they are possible. I found that when working on the self-closed tag category, simple instructions applied most of the time, but there were enough tricky ones that simple instructions were not possible. For example, sometimes <div /> should be changed to <div></div>, and other times it is a typo for </div>. Another tricky case is <b />, which should be replaced with <nowiki />, <br />, or </b>, depending on the context.
My experience with categories like this on en.WP is that you end up with a group of four or five gnomes who fix all of the errors. Those gnomes learn the tricky bits through experience. If you're lucky, some of the fixes have no edge cases and can be fixed by a bot, leaving the rest for the gnomes to fix in context. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but then, this kind of explanation needs to be offered, and if a person figures they aren't able to determine what the correct case is, then they move on to the next (hopefully easier) category? (My experience matches yours. We've also had amazing people who single-handedly went out to fix on other wikis; but it is not enough, and it doesn't scale. Hence why I'm encouraging the team to try and make things easier for a wider audience.) Elitre (WMF) (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through them once, and I assume that some people will understand them. I didn't understand the reference to "Please see the detailed help page for this category." I thought that pages were being listed on a Special page, not on a category page, and there is no link to any detailed help page. I guess I am just still confused about some of the questions I listed above. Don't stop your deployment on my account. I am available to help, and I am sure that you will find others who are as well. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For information, I've recently modified WPCleaner to integrate it with Linter. Currently, the following is available:
Access to list of pages detected for a given Linter category is provided from the main window (Linter categories button)
Access to the analysis by Linter of the page currently being edited, including the unsaved modifications (Linter button in the toolbar in the Full Analysis window and Check Wiki window)
Thanks Elitre (WMF), I will try to do it when I've done some improvements on WPCleaner. I'm currently adding code for dealing with the missing-end-tag reported by Linter: my development version currently detects problems with <center> tags, and suggests a fix when it's inside a gallery tag or an image description ; I have to make it automatic for some situations, add suggestions in other situations, and do the same for other tags. --NicoV(Talk on frwiki)09:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good! I guess you have an idea of how many communities are actually using it? Do you have a way to communicate with them all at once? Elitre (WMF) (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NicoV: You can use the "information box" at the bottom of WPCleaner to communicate to a large audience that uses your tool. Add some "eye-cathing color" to the text, and people will read it when logging in to the tool. (t) Josve05a (c)14:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem. I did not run anything. I opened the checkwiki interface, and found a new run, with a lot of errors that wasn't there a week before. IKhitron (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Magioladitis I have the same question ("What are you talking about?"). Ruwiki's web interface got new dump yesterday, and it's basic checkwiki feature, isn't it? There are 4 maintainers for checkwiki tool at WMFlabs tool list, you're in the list, so, even if Bgwhite left the project (I hope he's not), tool isn't dead. Who is going to close project and why? Facenapalm (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Facenapalm I can't download and process the dump files (my laptop is rather old and my connection is not in a better shape) and in fact it's also not in my plans neither. You can ofcourse ask the other two persons if they want to keep working with it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Download dump files for what? I thought dumps are scanned directly on WMFlabs, aren't they? If not, who scanned last ruwiki dump yesterday? Even if current maintainers have no plans about project, they can add a new maintainer(s), right? I can't believe that noone can and want to maintain the project. I probably can help with ruwiki dumps, if you'll explain what's needed. Facenapalm (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, for international team there is no panic. Marios is talking about on-wiki pages, which are generated with WPC, which uses slightly different algorithms for error detecting. Web interface (the "real" CW) isn't going anywhere. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about the on-wiki pages generated every month based on the same algorithm with the daily scans. The lists are generated with 3 ways:
Daily scans
Monthly scans
Monthly(?) scans by WPC which are done with a slightly different algorithm.
I get a new run twice a month. If it will be once a month from now, I can leave with it. The problem is all changes in the code, including those that Bgwhite already started to write. I have about 5 like these. IKhitron (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FrescoBot also stopped since March. It's the fourth of fifth bot that was used in the project and stopped. Meanwhile, BAG still has not completed the process of reaffirming Yobot for the 100+ tasks it used to run. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see what you mean by "The project has stalled", I routinely perform CHECKWIKI cleanup tasks, and listings are certainly updated e.g. [1]. And if for some reason the project did stall, what do you want me to do about it? I have no idea how these listings are generated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}12:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's time to send this project for deletion? Certain people in the community worked systemtically against certain parts of this project (people, bots, tasks). There was even an Arbitration case that concluded recently. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are in panic, yes. Some people may have lost interest in it, but it doesn't mean the project is bad, or is undesired by the community. Certainly feel free to contact the bot ops to resume their bots, or pick up some of the slack with Yobot. If you do, my advice is to focus on high/mid-priority tasks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}15:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. frwiki has not been updated since 2017-09-16 and I'm afflicted. Is the Check Wikipedia project definitively cancelled or replaced? Except for enwiki, it still seems to run from time to time in other languages... Thank you.
Clumsy and stupid (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BIG Blue Button
It appears that the next stage of the OOUI-ification of MediaWiki is going to change something about how the "Save" (aka "Publish") button is implemented in the API. There is a possibility that a small number of scripts or bots will break as a result. See phab:T162849 and mw:OOjs UI for more information.
If you think that this will be a problem for your work, then you might want to ask for help at WP:BOTN or WP:VPT.
This has been planned for years, announced in Tech News, etc., which probably means that nobody has paid attention to it. :-) I therefore ask for your help in sharing this information with technically minded editors at other projects. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has already happened at fawiki and plwiki, so you can go there to test your scripts, or follow the directions on mw.org to test it on any (WMF) wiki.
User:NicoV, this may reach the French Wikipedia (and a few others, but not dewiki or enwiki) next Wednesday, which is 28 June 2017. I'll leave a note at Le Bistro (in English, alas) once the schedule's settled, but I thought I'd give you an early warning. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This next group has been postponed until Wednesday, 5 July 2017, because Matma Rex found some bugs in the Monobook skin, and because having a little extra time to check their scripts won't hurt anyone. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: This is done, everywhere. Commons was the last wiki, about 9 days ago. During the next month, if you see new breakage in scripts, it's more likely to be Krinkle's jQuery 3 update than this OOjs UI change. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tidy replacement
Previously, on Tidy Replacement... The Parsing team wants to replace Tidy with a RemexHTML-based solution on the Wikimedia cluster by June 2018. This will require editors to fix pages and templates to address wikitext patterns that behave differently with RemexHTML. Please see the "What editors will need to do" section on the Tidy replacement FAQ. This is ongoing, although operations seem to go slowly at this wiki?
I now want to point your attention to the related update that Subbu provided on wikitech-l. Please do ping him (User:SSastry (WMF)) if you have any questions or concerns, ideas about how to get more people involved here or communications venues we haven't explored yet (I will contact technical village pumps later this month, FWIW), etc. Hope this helps! Elitre (WMF) (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the check digital myself of the issn 1010-4143, which is correct (unless my calculation wrong and library wrong), but it shown error in the page. Is that the wikipedia coding on checking issn had error instead? or UFT8 character table or 8 bit character table error? Matthew_hktc20:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am a dedicated member of this project and I commit my time to clearing the problems of the English Wikipedia. I noticed the last update was August 31, 2017.
Is there any reason for that? Are you trying to reduce the backlog first before updating. I am bringing this to your attention because it used to be daily.
As i can see, the wikis with dump cycle - an update twice a month - work as usual. I can see the hewiki updates all the time. The wikis with special schedule - as enwiki every day, and so on, are not work, because they done by different script. Maybe, until this script will be fixed, the dump one should check all the wikis - twice a month is better than nothing. IKhitron (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was really sad when I understood a few months ago that Bgwhite had left the project (and wiki altogether). His work made the project increase a lot since he took over after SK. Now that Bgwhite also left the project, I'd like to understand what can be done to continue with this project. I understand that enwiki has some strong opponents against it (I don't understand why, keeping a good maintenance level is good for wiki in the long term...), but many other wikis seem to be ok with the project. My experience with frwiki is that I can do a lot of things over there, I just have to explain from times to times what I'm doing and why, but there are no ayatollas against the project.
It seems that some lists have not been updated in the last weeks (or months ?), so there's probably some maintenance to do on Labs for checkwiki. Is anyone interested in taking over this part of the project (at least making sure that the scripts keep running on a regular basis on Labs) ? How can we get access to checkwiki account on Labs ? Myself, I already have little time available to work on WPC, so working also on checkwiki would be too much...
If we don't manage to keep the checkwiki scripts running, there's still the possibility to use WPC to generate some of the lists (I do it on frwiki), but it's only based on the dumps which are normally produced twice a month.
NicoV I think we have to move the entire project on Meta and say goodbye to English Wikipedia, at least for now. There was an effort to encourage people to determine which tasks they find useful but I am not sure about the current status anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you get the idea that WP:CHECKWIKI has strong opponents. Most people have been pretty supportive of it, "opponents" included. Moving the project to 'meta' won't change anything about anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}18:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb The task is global. We moved the main information from German Wikipedia to Engish Wikipedia but I think it will reduce drama on English Wikipedia if we have a list of all possible errors that can be fixed on Meta. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Centralizing the project elsewhere certainly is doable (and may even be desirable for a variety of reasons), but it won't change anything about the level of support, or the drama (or lack thereof) the project has. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}19:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Magioladitis I don't think that hosting the discussions on Meta or English wikipedia changes anything: it's just the discussions, not the tools. I'm more worried about maintaining the tools on Labs: currently, the scripts are not working normally, only a few errors are reported... --NicoV(Talk on frwiki)15:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both the enwiki (started: 31 August 2017, job id: 8992714) and frwiki (started: 12 September 2017, job id: 9458602) jobs have hung on the Toolforge grid. Since they are configured to have only one instance running at a time, new instances of these jobs will not run until these are killed. The statuses can be checked using qstat -j 8992714,9458602 on a Toolforge command line. I am not a member of the checkwiki Toolforge project, so I can't kill them. The two log files are at /data/project/checkwiki/var/log/frwiki-delay.o9458602 and /data/project/checkwiki/var/log/enwiki-delay.o8992714 --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some ideas:
Couldn't some WMF department help us? Given how successful the project is...
Shouldn't we finally have this integrated as a MediaWiki extension, like the successful Linter? This would spread it to much much more wikis.
As an OT comment, I'm glad to see activity in this wikiproject. The English Wikipedia is unfortunately behind with the Tidy fixes, while, if all goes well, a couple of big other wikis like the German and the Italian Wikipedia will be on track for an early switch to Remex a few weeks from now. I plan to nudge the English Wikipedia community once again soon, this time at the technical Village Pump. Obviously curious to hear other ideas of course :) Best, Elitre (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Elitre (WMF) I order to avoid any false accusations for performing "cosmetic edits" I think we have first to wait for all pages to break and then fix the pages using bots. Ay preamptive action will be considered by some editors are "unnecessary". Any massive fixes by non bot accounts may be considered as "bot like editing". -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe that so far WMF has provided all the relevant information that's necessary to start fixing on a large scale, including simplified instructions for people who are not necessarily "techie", and several community members have shared their tools and techniques. Switching has already happened at major wikis (it.wp, de.wp) and more will follow very soon. How to organise, what to focus on, what to prioritise (example), that's obviously up to each community to decide. Again, if you need specific directions or clarifications, User:SSastry (WMF) is all ears and always available to provide guidance, tips, support etc. Elitre (WMF) (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements to error 521?
I've made some additions and improvements to error 521 so it catches more date errors, especially those caught by Category:CS1 errors: dates. Would it be possible to update the error so it catches more issues? (e.g. years with more than 4 digits, months > 12, days > 31) Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GoingBatty. As errors above 500 are only handled by WPC, not by CW, even if they are configured in the same page, I'm the one who needs to do the improvements on WPC to catch the errors. We can continue the discussion on WPCleaner's talk page if you want. I don't have much free time right now (and I try to do major improvements to deal with Linter reports), but we can discuss what should be added. --NicoV(Talk on frwiki)11:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed slowness quite a bit on Windows lately. However, I just bough my first Mac this week, and I'm noticing it is much more responsive in this OS. (t) Josve05a (c)00:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Malplaced translation page to English Wiktionary at [2]
The link to the translation page for English Wiktionary has been incorrectly placed.
It is supposed to be [3] but it is placed at [4] which isn't even a page. Can you please rename it. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
phab:T184656 has a list of 389 wikis where Tidy will be removed (and replaced by RemexHTML) on 31 January 2018. These wikis currently have fewer than 10 high-priority problems.
If you are active at other wikis, please look over the list and check your favorites. If you notice problems after the switch, then please feel free to ping me, or (especially if it's urgent) leave a comment in the Phab task where the devs will see it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, I have started fixing some of them. looks like the citation mangling were through Ohconfucius's script by editors like Tony1here[5], Iggy the Swanherehere, Ohconfuciushere ... I really don't think we should be changing article titles like that. if the article title uses a particular case convention, we should probably use the same case convention, and not change the article title. Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are evidence of a malformed script, as far as I can tell. I reverted a few to send the operator a notification. I have also cleaned up a few of the pages in the search. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
