Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

Policy

Technical

Proposals

Idea lab

WMF

Miscellaneous

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

Shortcuts

• WP:VPT
• WP:VP/T

The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia. Bugs and feature requests should be made at the BugZilla.

Newcomers to the technical village pump are encouraged to read these guidelines prior to posting here. Questions about MediaWiki in general should be posted at the MediaWiki support desk.

view · edit Frequently asked questions (see also: Wikipedia:Technical FAQ) Click "[show]" next to each point to see more details. If something looks wrong, purge the server's cache, then bypass your browser's cache. This tends to solve most issues, including improper display of images, user-preferences not loading, and old versions of pages being shown. No, we will not use JavaScript to set focus on the search box. This would interfere with usability, accessibility, keyboard navigation and standard forms. See task 3864. There is an accesskey property on it (default to accesskey="f" in English). Logged-in users can enable the "Focus the cursor in the search bar on loading the Main Page" gadget in their preferences. No, we will not add a spell-checker, or spell-checking bot. You can use a web browser such as Firefox, which has a spell checker. If you have problems making your fancy signature work, check Help:How to fix your signature. If you changed to another skin and cannot change back, use this link. Alternatively, you can press Tab until the "Save" button is highlighted, and press Enter. Using Mozilla Firefox also seems to solve the problem. If an image thumbnail is not showing, try purging its image description page. If the image is from Wikimedia Commons, you might have to purge there too. If it doesn't work, try again before doing anything else. Some ad blockers, proxies, or firewalls block URLs containing /ad/ or ending in common executable suffixes. This can cause some images or articles to not appear. For server or network status, please see Wikimedia Status. If you cannot reach Wikipedia services, see Reporting a connectivity issue.

« Archives, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213

To-do: E · H · W · R Updated 2009-09-19

When printing an article should the hidden categories be output? It looks like they are always output regardless of user preference for their display. Keith D (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden categories shouldn't be displayed when printing an article, and the current behaviour is a bug that has been fixed in revision 55727 of MediaWiki. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is currently running revision 55629, so the fix isn't on this site yet. Graham87 08:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we could have fixed it ourselves by adding a CSS rule to MediaWiki:Print.css. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is actually running revision "52088 plus numerous live hacks and single-revision merges" (as far as I can tell, anyway); since about 2 months ago the currently-running code has been published in a "wmf-deployment" branch, which has the side effect of rendering useless the comparison of Special:Version with the trunk revision of any fix to determine if it is live. Anomie⚔ 12:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with the update. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't there use to be a link from the search page (the one you get to by clicking Search) to some kind of help page (presumably WP:Searching)? Anyway, shouldn't there be? And is that page up to date with all the current options? Is there more current documentation at the MediaWiki site or somewhere?--Kotniski (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want MediaWiki:Newarticletext (you have to open it for editing it to see all of the messages). There have been some recent changes. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, see MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext#search link. There's some discussion about this above as well, but it should really be occurring on the talk page
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, but that's not really what I was asking about. I don't mean what you see when you click a redlink; I mean what you see when you click the "Search" button (with or without anything in the search field). Basically - where is our search functionality documented, and how are readers supposed to find it when searching?--Kotniski (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In couple of ways, either click on Help in the sidebar, and the navigate to "Search for an article", or on the search page type in search and click on "help and project pages". --rainman (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All seems very counterintuitive. How do we get a direct link to help-on-searching onto the search results page? (Presumably there's a MediaWiki: page we can edit/create?)--Kotniski (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Twinkle seems to be working again, at least it is for me

Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 16:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone else have trouble with Twinkle for the past hour or so? Some of the features are still working, but "csd" seems to just do nothing when clicked. I am assuming there is some sort of javascript issue, but I cleared all my caches, and even rebooted and can't seem to figure it out. Anyone? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysteriously it has started working again. Any ideas what caused that? I'm baffled! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also experience this problem, where clicking on the tabs does nothing, it's still doing it for me. -- œ^™ 04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea did a revert on one of the twinkle files last night, perhaps that is related. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting this here to find out if this is plausible...

Highlight a term and then press enter to go to the wiktionary entry on that term.

1. Would this be easy for developers to add to the Wikimedia software?

2. What is the current proposal process for adding new features to the software?

The Transhumanist    23:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be posible through javascript. For instructions on how to submit requests see Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests©Geni 23:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was sort of thinking about this myself, a while back. Why not simply interwiki-link to important words within body text? If it's an item that is directly relevant/related to the article topic, then a Wikipedia link would be more appropriate. If it's a more unusual word though, I wouldn't have an issue with a Wiktionary link being in the body text.

Putting the above aside and addressing the specific idea here though, the New York Times does this on their web site, and I see no reason why we couldn't either. I just don't see a compelling reason not to create interwiki-links, using the existing tools, is all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is subjective to define "unusual word", as the standard of a native speaker must be different to ESL, and may depend on many other factors. --Quest for Truth (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the request; IE8 and FF 3.5 do that already. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean is Internet Explorer 8#Accelerators? How about people not using IE8 and FF 3.5? I suggest you check out http://www.nytimes.com and experience the dictionary yourself. --Quest for Truth (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this feature is useful on all websites, not just Wikipedia, it's better provided by a browser addon (of which several are already available) then by a Mediawiki feature. Algebraist 15:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess the best way to implement this would be as a Javascript gadget, something similar to Navigation popups. Then it would be available as an option to the registered users and wouldn't be forced upon everyone. Quibik (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, then an optional gadget will be available to those who like this idea. It won't affect those have other solutions or those simply don't want this feature. --Quest for Truth (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My watchlist has been growing over years. I periodically clean it up, deleting the issues I lost interest, however I cannot arrest it growth no matter how I try. (I am sure many old-timers deal with the issue; your advice is welcome.)

Quite often I add an item to my watchlist after doing some important or significant changes in a tangential articles, to see how other editors react. I want to watch it only for 2-3 weeks; "until the dust settles".

Is it possible to add an option that an item is aded to my watchlist only for a certain time, similarly to blocks? The implementation does not need to be very exact: I don't care that the item is removed exactly after 6d 0h 0m 0s. THe cleanup may be done, e.g., at the login, or once a week, whatever.

Any opinions? - Altenmann >t 22:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want this only for specific articles? I can think of some clever ways to do this for your entire watchlist (save your watchlist, then in three weeks use a list comparer to compare the saved list to your current watchlist, and then replace it with only the new items).

The way I keep my watchlist culled is by just unwatching stuff on a regular basis =) You could use something like importScript('User:Alex Smotrov/wlunwatch.js'); to add an instant unwatch button to your watchlist. –xeno^talk 23:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This could be done by creating a list of those pages on a subpage of your user page and creating a bot that would check that page and delete old entries. The pages on that list wouldn't show up in your watchlist, but on "Related changes" of that page. Entries on that list could look like this: {{temp watch|Some page|6d}}.

Another option is that when you add a page to that list, bot would add it to your watchlist and remove it after the specified time. The problem with this alternative is that the bot would need to know your password to access and edit your watchlist. Svick (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a similar proposal sometime ago about adding datestamps to the watchlist, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_42#Dated_Watchlist_items. -- œ^™ 00:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please tell me the correct css name for the new legend on the watchlist? I want to hide it. Thanks! –xeno^talk 23:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found it. I feel clever now. (code follows for your monobook.css if you want to hide it too) –xeno^talk 23:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

div.mw-rc-label-legend {display: none;}

Is there any way to hide the new underlined m, n and b symbols as well? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't new, just the dotted underlining is new. I don't know. –xeno^talk 00:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe those are called tooltips, yes? I find them a bit annoying. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist legend

Ok, I get that it's useful to see "Legend: N - new page, m - minor edit, b - bot edit." for new users, but it's irritating me already. Is there a way to hide it? J Milburn (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My magic Xeno-ball says:

div.mw-rc-label-legend {display: none;}

added to your monobook.css and then a hard refresh. See the section #Legend above. What I want is to lose the damn tooltips and underlining on the Nmb. ↪REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 10:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a partial solution to my own latter point. I can remove the annoying underlines, but not lose the dumbed-down tootltip:

abbr.newpage {border:0;}
abbr.bot {border:0;}
abbr.minor {border:0;}

So that's a start. ↪REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 11:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou muchly :) J Milburn (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! (Combined threads) –xeno^talk 12:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, rather irritating for the experienced user. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 16:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to remove the legend using this code, doing a full refresh afterward, but nothing changed. Enigma^msg 18:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to put it in Special:Mypage/monobook.css (not .js). If you copy my monobook there's a bunch of other chaff that's been hidden that you won't miss. –xeno^talk 21:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been really, really cheeky and done it for you. Just hard-refresh now and your watchlist will be shiny bright. I didn't add Xeno's extras, though. ↪REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 22:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The the new tool tips are super ugly. Can we make them go away? I mean as a default for everyone?--Knulclunk (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think they were added? Could it perhaps be in response to the hundreds of "what do those wierd cryptic letters on my watchlist mean?" questions we've had at the help desk?? They're not intended for experienced users; fortunately, those users are the ones who are able to easily hide them if they find them annoying. (also)Happy‑melon 14:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their obviously not intended for experienced users, which is exactly the problem. Turn them on for IP's and newer users (less then X edits), but turn them off otherwise. That we must mess around with our custom CSS/JS for this is... rude.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 15:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Parser bug fixed. You may need to purge or edit individual pages.

This infobox Template:Infobox Gridiron football person is blank, and it blanks all the text of articles it's in, but when I go to edit, the text is there. What gives? Abductive (reasoning) 23:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having the same issue on Chop Suey! (song). All the categories are still there through. Looking at the article you linked, it's blanked for me as well. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. If you look on article talk pages, some banners are visible and others aren't. PC78 (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently ditto with something over at Sarah Palin. I imagine it has something to do with: "Software updates are being applied to Wikimedia sites; there may be some brief interruption as the servers update." user:J aka justen (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're looking into it... --brion (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the text that suggests you can create a non-existent article (along with handy redlink to click) is gone. –xeno^talk 00:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Another instance with a different template on Marc Garneau. I have also noticed problems on talk pages with {{WPBS}} or {{WPMILHIST}} as well, on Talk:USS Texas (BB-35). I see that brion is on it, so hopefully this will be fixed soon. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you guys know, it is only occurring for me in Vector skin in both Firefox and IE. If I'm signed out, they render fine. About 1/20 articles are doing this for me, for ex. randoms Grzeszów, John Warner (half missing), Storm Shadow.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 00:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It kills cricket infoboxes on all pages like Harbhajan Singh (TFA) YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 00:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Peace and Passion first noted at wp:an, logging out appears to have an impact, perhaps due to theme. I'm using Vector in Safari. When I log out, it's still fubar even in MonoBook, in Safari, perhaps due to some client-side cache. But when I browse from Firefox, which has no cache of Wikipedia, the articles specifically mentioned above are showing up fine. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from WP:AN) by Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 00:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC) for the use of the "fixers" here....[reply]

Twinkle/Friendly seem to also be broken by the update (at least for me in Firefox). Manual page tagging and warning is much harder than I remember.  7  00:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle is broken in Opera too. And, yes, manual page tagging is much harder than it was before. ;0 Eeekster (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a twinkle bug notice and TheDJ quickly found the issue - and a fix is in the works [1].  7  00:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parser bug now fixed. It was a bug in an attempt to clean up extra whitespace around category links -- sometimes it would instead delete the entire article text. Woops! :) --brion (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every page now has a #catlinks div, regardless of whether or not it is a content page. On action=edit, there are even two of them. Anyone know what's going on with this? — RockMFR 03:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was marked as resolved, but it's definitely not fixed. — RockMFR 23:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well I was not seeing it anymore. Do you have HotCat enabled per chance ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a gadget issue. Here's a snippet of the HTML coming from the server:

<div class="catlinks catlinks-allhidden" id="catlinks"> </div></form>
<div class="printfooter">
Retrieved from "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)</a>"</div>
			<div id='catlinks' class='catlinks catlinks-allhidden'></div>			<!-- end content -->

— RockMFR 23:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The div is now always included - but hidden if it's empty - to make it easier for editing gadgets that are being worked on to dynamically add categories to the list while you work. (Otherwise the client-side code won't know where the category list belongs.) As far as I know this shouldn't cause any problems as such; what's the problem you're actually seeing? --brion (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one, there shouldn't be two elements with the same id. What's the reason for having two of them on the edit page? — RockMFR 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bugzilla:20718 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half the sections don't work, and instead give ugly gibberish filled sections. But another half works just fine. What gives? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the sitenotice: "Software updates are being applied to Wikimedia sites; we're shaking out a few remaining issues." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bugzilla:20689 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was duped to the older bugzilla:16129 which implies this is an older problem (though it may be 'spreading' as more UI messages are made flexible, so affecting more includable special pages). --brion (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I created a Wikipedia account, probably over a year ago, but I can no longer remember the user name.

I just had to create a new account in order to log in. Is there any way I can recover my old account's user name given the email address I specified when I created it?

If I do manage to retrieve the old username, can I delete the new one I created today?

Keith — Preceding unsigned comment added by WritermanUK (talk • contribs)

• Can you remember any articles you edited and approximately when? Go to the article, click on "history" at the top and navigate to the time. That might give you a reminder. The new user name can't be deleted, but you can abandon it. We can't reverse search on the email address, if you find the account, the email address means you can get a password reminder. ↪REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 10:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Registered user names can be seen at Special:ListUsers. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or has text enclosed with <tt>...</tt> or <code>...</code> gotten a lot smaller? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And pre as well

This is rather small for an old geezer like myself. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad change. Also, the timestamps on my watchlist are microscopic. Happening in Firefox and Safari. Please revert. UncleDouggie (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a change in the Vector skin; no problem with Monobook. Didn't see the issue with timestamps though. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely much smaller than before; added to Bugzilla as bugzilla:20706, we'll see if we can clean it up. --brion (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent MediaWiki upgrade to the English Wikipedia contained a MediaWiki change that broke templates like {{flag}} that generate images designed to be invisible to the screen readers used by visually impaired people. Formerly, usage like this:

[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|22x20px|link=]] [[United States]]

generated an image with no alt text, which caused screen readers to silently bypass the image, as intended (because it's just decoration; all the intended info is also in the adjacent text). But now it generates " United States", whose image contains the unwanted alt text "Flag of the United States.svg".

The change was installed by Remember the dot (talk · contribs), so I left a note at User talk:Remember the dot #Repercussions of alt-text handling change, but that user's most recent edit says "I will be leaving very soon for a period of two years" so I'm worried that this will fall through the cracks. Does anybody happen to know who's in charge of that section of code these days? I'd like to see this one fixed. Eubulides (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with using |alt=? Algebraist 22:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before, editors could mark purely decorative images with "|link=" but now they must remember "|link=|alt=" (both are now required). More important, English Wikipedia must have hundreds of templates and/or articles that rely on the old behavior, are now broken from a WP:ACCESSIBILITY viewpoint, and will have to be fixed by hand if this software change is permanent. (As an aside, I'm mystified as to why the change was made in the first place; ordinarily a screen reader falls back on the file name if no alt text is specified, so why should MediaWiki clutter up the HTML with another copy of the file name?) Eubulides (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I requested the change in this discussion at Code Review, which I found through this message on my talk page. JAWS 10 and later don't announce links to images properly if they have no alt text, even if the image has title text. Formerly they said "link graphic filename"; with JAWS 10 and later, they would've said "Link filename", which I found to be more confusing. I thought that rather than relying on the screen reader to automatically say the filename, it should be put in the alt text so screen readers have *something* to work with. Maybe a default alt text of "Missing alt text" or even "Image link" would be appropriate.

I didn't think of the case where the image doesn't contain a link; that behaviour should be reverted back to the way it was previously because the current setup is annoying when images are unlinked. I was going to bring that issue up, but you beat me to it. I'll drop a note at the above-linked Code Review page, as well as Simetrical's talk page, since he works with accessibility issues. Graham87 10:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This bug report might be related. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image update problem

I've tried to update File:Long_leg_hair.jpg with a better version but I get an error saying that there is a file with that name on commons but there isn't. I've tried it twice and it does the same thing. Is this just temporary because of the software update? Smartse (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably bugzilla:20677 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having this problem as well for over a day now and it's getting seriously annoying – this has blocked me from uploading quite a few images. Quibik (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, at least someones is on the case then. Thanks for you help. Smartse (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen the warning about files on commons, but I am seeing a 'failed to calculate hash' warning which was also reported on that bug, which should help us narrow down at least part of it. Michael's poking at it but hasn't been able to reproduce all the problems yet. --brion (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image upload problem

I'm trying to upload a new image for File:Phantasy Star Portable 2 Cover.jpg, but anyway I try to, I get:

Upload warning

A file with this name exists at the Wikimedia Commons. You can:

*go back and upload this file to Wikipedia using a different name.
*upload it to Commons, if your intent is to replace the image that already exists with a better version.

File:$1
$1

There is no image named this on Commons, and it shouldn't be. Is there something wrong? MrKIA11 (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See #Image update problem above. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't reduce an image resolution

I noticed File:SuckerShirtFinalFlat.jpg, which is at excessively high resolution for a fair-use logo. So, I download it, reduce resolution, and attempt to re-upload by clicking the "upload a new version of this image" link at the file page. I get an error message telling me "A file with this name exists at the Wikimedia Commons. You can: * go back and upload this file to Wikipedia using a different name. * upload it to Commons, if your intent is to replace the image that already exists with a better version. ". There is no such image at Commons. —Kww(talk) 01:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See #Image update problem above.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is probably the same as #Image update problem. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading new image version

• File:Periodic table by article value.PNG
• File:Periodic table by page views.PNG
• File:Element Page Views Distribution.png

I am trying to upload new versions of the above images. When I do so, an error message pops up saying that the files exist on Wikimedia Commons and that I should upload there instead. When I go to Commons, the files never come up in searches, and I'm pretty sure they were never uploaded there in the first place. Any ideas? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See #Image_update_problem section above. Ruslik_Zero 19:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cite software has been updated to allow definition of references within the reference list. See Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#cite.php update. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very interesting. I just wish cite.php was less like html/xml and more like wikicode. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't a template be made that basically encloses the xhtml tags within a wiki template? So you could use something like {{ref|name=Foo|(content)}} and then have the template itself contain <ref {{#if:{{{name|}}}|name="{{{name}}}"|}}>{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|}}</ref> ? Heck, it could also enclose citation templates in it, so that instead of the unnamed parameter (which would contain a template like {{cite web}}, you could just use all the parameters of {{citation}} and then this template would pass them through to create a ref. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for that. The main holdup though is that the {{ref}} template already exists, and is (still!) used for non-cite.php references. There are a lot of people who learned to do citations without cite.php, and they don't seem to want to change.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. 'Twas just a placeholder name. We could always just move the current template and have a bot rename all usages. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally thousands of {{ref}} uses, and I don't see those editors who still use it regularly as being appreciative or supportive of a change. If you want to float a proposal about doing so though, I'll certainly support you (I'm just guessing that it'll float like a lead balloon, is all). One of the main tasks that my bot is (eventually) going to be used for is to clean up and organize refs, so this kind of thing is right in my bailiwick.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a better idea for a name? I'm completely open to suggesstions. {{Cite}}, perhaps? That wouldn't be nearly as controversial; a bot would just need to bypass the redirects. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this new extension of cite.php finally replicates the single most attractive feature of the{{ref}}/{{note}} system - that it keeps the citation information from cluttering the body of the article. But there might remain differences of opinion about other disparities in how the two systems function. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try {{#tag:ref|Whatever}}. — Werdna • talk 17:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Are there other reasons for doing this other than making ref tags more like templates? Using multiple systems like this breaks consistency between articles here and between other wikis, makes things harder to learn, and will likely also break any script or bot that works with or parses references. References are already one of the biggest bottlenecks in terms of parsing time due to templates like {{citation}} being so complicated and large articles having dozens of refs. Increasing the complexity will just make it even worse. Mr.Z-man 17:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, I think, is that new users need to figure out two ways of formatting things... HTML-style and wiki-style. Only one should really be used, IMO, although for experience editors it doesn't really matter. It's just trying to get used to it for new users. I know that this is probably never going to happen because of parsing issues, breaking tools, etc.; I just thought I'd toss it out there as something which could be done. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be one thing if we switched to a template-based system, and then converted all existing uses to it (though we would still be inconsistent with other wikis), but using multiple systems seems like it would just be more confusing (and more likely to break things) than one "non-standard" system. When I started on Wikipedia, I learned how to do most things by example, from looking at other articles, only referring to guidelines and help pages when examples weren't clear. Mr.Z-man 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I think it will take a while before list-defined references take off; heck, a lot of editors are still not aware of the groups feature. We need to document use at Help:Footnotes and include some guidelines. I will do some more testing on this and will update features on the help page as I discover them. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I wanted to mention a couple of relevant points here, however.

• First, cite.php is an extension, and is therefore already non-standard (although, it's use is so widespread now that pointing out that it's "non-standard" admittedly seems strange).
• Prior to the installation of cite.php people used {{ref}}, which is why that template already exists. I'm not sure if it's due to a lack of motivation or actual resistance, but it appears that there is support for retaining the "pre-cite.php" referencing.
• In the vast majority of areas we already prefer templates over xHTML tags, and the main reasons to do so are ease of use, maintainability, and standardization.

Personally, I wouldn't have any issue with folding <ref></ref> tag use into {{ref}} and even {{Citation/core}}, which would require removing the <ref> and </ref> tags from around the majority of existing references. It's a large migration project, but I think that it would be helpful to most people, and it would certainly simplify the source wikitext in the vast majority of articles. As for the learning curve, once the conversion started I think that people would catch on fairly quickly. There would need to be a specific migration period that should last a while (2 weeks would be the minimum, I would think), but it could be done.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is stopping us from making the templates and let those who want to try it. I don't think we should organize a mass migration unless the new type is well-proven and well-liked. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both {{ref}} and {{Citation}} are already in use, and are in such widespread use that their fully edit protected, so there's no possible way to boldly experiment.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could use {{ref2}} or {{cite2}} or come up with something else while testing. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I updated Arthur Rudolph to use list-defined references as an example. As to {{ref}}— most current uses could be replaced by the groups feature of cite.php. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, they could be, and I personally think that they should be, but someone needs to go and create consensus to change them.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about we try it for a while before mass-changing? --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this

I suspect that the xml-like syntax has not been replaced with a template yet because putting the other citation templates inside gets ugly: {{ref|{{cite book|author=...}}}}. With the new list-defined references that is no longer a problem. If we are going to puish for defining references at the end anyway, may I suggest an even shorter syntax in the body text:

• {{ref|Smith2006}}

which would be the same as <ref name="Smith2006" />. This would make article text very readable once again. {{ref}} may have to be replaced with whatever template name we can aquire for this. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think list-defined refs will make the body more readable for the casual editor and shorter syntax is always nice if it's understandable. I don't want to jump the gun on implementation, but may I also suggest a script to convert an article's refs into list-defined refs. I can see it becoming very useful if list-defined become the preferred method to cite. —Ost (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Apparently I need some education as well. What is the preferred way to do citations? Is Help:Footnotes up-to-date? I'm curious if I'm doing it correctly. I took a bit of a hiatus from editing and just now started again and learned about the group feature yesterday.↔NMajdan•talk 20:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing new ways. The method described in Help:Footnotes is the current standard. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is would really want is <<Smith2006>>. I think references are important enough to deserve their own wiki syntax. That needs code changes of course. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a more centralized discussion page for improvements to the footnotes system with links to the myriad of previous discussions. Much of this seems familiar, and indeed the recent change is due to a series of discussions that I finger at the moment. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, isn't the usability project working on this too? Perhaps the new format we just got came from there. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I implemented this one. Dragons flight (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geez... OK, hang on, let's slow down a bit. The "list-type references" came from a proposal originally made here, if I remember correctly. There have been several proposals to do similar things I'm sure, but someone finally motivated a developer to add in the list-type reference code. Anyway, references already have their own code, which is defined by the cite.php extension, and is (essentially) what we're talking about here. I don't think that creating {{ref2}}, {{Citation2}}, and the like, would be helpful in the long run because it would simply complicate matters even more (we would then be adding a third method rather then simplifying/standardizing on one method). As for a more centralized discusison, I can't imagine a more central place to discuss this. WP:FOOTNOTE is certainly not more central then the Village pump (although, we should move this to Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) if we're actually going to make this a change proposal). We could easily add an RFC to this and/or listing it on {{cent}}. It's probably a bit early for that though, since we're not even sure what the proposal is.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I meant we need a list of previous discussions— there have been so many that there are a lot of repeated ideas.

The simplest way to do this is to change {{citation/core}} add a parameter, let's call it |refname= that if defined, wraps the citation in <ref name=refname></ref>. Thus it is backward compatible as it only invokes the new feature if the parameter is defined. We could then create a template named redef for the inline cite. Frankly, I don't see any need to update {{ref}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A potential issue with the proposals above to hide the <ref> within a template is that it will make it much more difficult for syntax highlighters and other tools that look at the page's wikitext to determine what is a reference and what is not. Instead of just searching for <ref> and {{#tag:ref}}, they'll also have to keep track of every random template people do this with. Anomie⚔ 13:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been coming towards that point of view as well. Checklinks and refTools don't work with list-defined references— I have alerted their owners and hopefully we can get some updates for these valuable tools. I don't see how any tool could pull a reference if it is buried in a template. I did a proof of concept to show that it works, but I think it is more trouble than it is worth. I did a fix for another editor who was updating an article to LDR and found the problem by searching for the <ref> tag. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the XML-like syntax is much nicer, and much more readable, and much easier to parse, than template syntax. Why do we want to use the horrific template syntax instead?

Advantages of XML syntax:

• Matched opening and closing tags make it easier to see where a particular block ends and begins.
• Familiar to people who are used to programming with the web.
• Only slightly less brief.
• More natural method of specifying arguments.
• Fewer delimiter collisions (no need for ugly stuff like {{!}} and 1=).

Disadvantages:

• Inconsistent with templates.

— Werdna • talk 14:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who are familiar with HTML/XML you're absolutely correct. I've talked to several newer editors who aren't, however, and their always slightly confused by it at first. for those editors, the "ugly stuff" seems preferable, simply for consistency/ease of use.

Personally, I'm basically fine with things the way they are. It would be nice to just use {{Cite web|group=Note|name=Example|url=http;//www.foo.com|title=example}} instead of <ref group=Note name=example>{{Cite web|url=http;//www.foo.com|title=example}}</ref>, is all. It looks a lot neater in article source, as well.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 15:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please read this thread. I have some tools missing on the history page. I've asked a sys-op to delete all of my custom JS pages. But the tools still aren't there. When I log out they are there on the edit history. Please read this thread. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 20:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having an epiphany. I'm betting you have selected british english as your en.wp language option. That hides many of the local system message customizations. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right! I've changed my settings to general English and the links are there. What are the chances of making those tools available regardless of the language setting? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 16:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't blocked users allowed to see the abuse filter log? -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 08:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they need to? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 11:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they? If it's available to all users, including logged out, then it should be available to blocked users too. I don't think Wikipedia is supposed to operate on some kind of "need to know" basis. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an attribute of the generic method used to check permissions (originally, the abuse log was intended for privileged users only, and so a blocked user shouldn't be able to see it). Could be fixed up if the community is so inclined... Bugzilla is that way. — Werdna • talk 14:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to add a link to User Contributions in the toolbox on a user's subpage? Deserted Cities (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this can be done with Javascript. Algebraist 21:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty unhelpful response; I assume that if the person knew how to write JavaScript code, then they'd already be aware that it could be used to do this. I had written some code before to do this, but it adds a tab at the top of every page rather than in the toolbox; it does appear only on user pages, though, regardless if it's a subpage or not. Simply copy the following code to Special:MyPage/monobook.js:

addOnloadHook(function() 
{
	if (!(wgCanonicalNamespace == 'Special'))
	{
		var username = wgTitle.split('/')[0];
 
		// "User:" tabs
  	if (wgCanonicalNamespace == 'User' || wgCanonicalNamespace == 'User_talk')
		{
			addPortletLink('p-cactions', wgServer + '/wiki/Special:Contributions/' + username, 'contribs', 'ca-contrib', 'User contributions');
  	}
	}
});

Gary King (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the software changes, mediawiki:noarticletextanon (which actually transcludes mediawiki:noarticletext) is no longer displayed to anons when seeing a non-existent page, but instead it is mediawiki:Noarticletext-nopermission, a new mediawiki page (see google for info). I created it to transclude noarticletext to avoid the default, but it could be modified to replace "create this article ..." with elements from mediawiki:Nocreatetext, "log in..." and "submit the content ...". Cenarium (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of a sudden I'm getting colored backgrounds everywhere. I want my white backgrounds back! The new background colors make things hard to read. Elphion (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook did not change, and I see that User:Elphion/monobook.css is empty. Did you perhaps click "Try Beta" or did you change the skin to another option? hmwith☮ 14:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not change the skin. I did click on "Try Beta", but did not click the implementation button there. (Color changes weren't advertised in the "What's improved" blurb there anyway.) I can't swear the colors weren't there before (and I'm not talking dark colors, just dark enough to make the text look muddy), but having noticed them I am now constantly aware of them. I now see them in IE as well (which I don't usually use and never sign in with). How hard would it be to modify the CSS to make the basic tab background white for content, even beyond the main space? I tried * {background-color:white} but of course that wiped out too much (but conversely did not hit elements with more complex combinations of ids and styles). Elphion (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When looking in users' contributions, the contributions to deleted articles are not shown. This needs to be fixed ASAP. File a bugzilla report or somthing.174.3.110.93 (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about being more polite?

And deleted-contribs are only visible to administrators, for privacy and legal reasons. Also, if everyone could see them, the articles wouldn't really be "deleted" – would they? ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 08:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful though to be able to see that an editor made an edit, even if you can't (for good reasons) see the edit itself.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't think that the MediaWiki software makes that possible (though some external edit-counters do). Secondly, I'm not sure it is that helpful. And thirdly, often the titles of pages, and edit-summaries, contain sensitive/copyrighted information. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 08:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

< div style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;">

< /div>

I have put these two codes on top and bottom of my userpage to automatically change the font of the whole userpage to Calibri but since it is too small and hard to read, I tried to make it bigger by adding this part to the code,

font-size: 12pt

but unfortunately didn't work. Can someone help me how to fix this?

Also I tried to place two images vertically in my user infobox (two images don't have the same size but I tried to equalize them) but I didn't know how. Can someone help me with this too? Thanks. JuventusGamer (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: my user infobox (shown below) has the same basic code as others.

Village pump (technical)

— Wikipedian ♂ —
Diego, my current favorite bianconeri (left), Alessandro Del Piero, my all time favorite bianconeri (right)
Name	Alex
Born	November 29, 1989
Country	[[|]]
Height	6 ft 2 in
Weight	180 lbs
Blood type	O+
Sexuality	Straight
Education and employment
Occupation	Student, footballer
Hobbies, favourites and beliefs
Religion	Atheism
Politics	Light Greens Environmentalism
Interests
Video games *PlayStation 3

<font color="orange">[[Foobar]]</font>

<a href="/wiki/Foobar" title="Foobar"><font color="orange">Foobar</font></a>

<span color="orange">[[Foobar]]</span>

<span><a href="/wiki/Foobar" title="Foobar">Foobar</a></span>

<font style="color:orange;">[[Foobar]]</font>

<a href="/wiki/Foobar" title="Foobar"><font style="color: orange;">Foobar</font></a>

<span style="color:orange;">[[Foobar]]</span>

<span style="color: orange;"><a href="/wiki/Foobar" title="Foobar">Foobar</a></span>

[[Foobar|<font style="color:orange;">Foobar</font>]]

<a href="/wiki/Foobar" title="Foobar"><font style="color: orange;">Foobar</font></a>

[[Foobar|<span style="color:orange;">Foobar</span>]]

<a href="/wiki/Foobar" title="Foobar"><span style="color: orange;">Foobar</span></a>

<a style="color:orange;" href="/wiki/Foobar" title="Foobar">Foobar</a>

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/misza13/pywikipedia/archivebot.py", line 606, in main
    Archiver.run()
  File "/home/misza13/pywikipedia/archivebot.py", line 519, in run
    self.archives[a].update(comment)
  File "/home/misza13/pywikipedia/archivebot.py", line 391, in update
    self.Page.put(newtext, minorEdit=True, comment=summary)
  File "/home/misza13/pywikipedia/wikipedia.py", line 1434, in put
    newPage, self.site().getToken(sysop = sysop), sysop = sysop, botflag=botflag, maxTries=maxTries)
  File "/home/misza13/pywikipedia/wikipedia.py", line 1466, in _putPage
    newPage, token, newToken, sysop, captcha, botflag, maxTries)
  File "/home/misza13/pywikipedia/wikipedia.py", line 1813, in _putPageOld
    if self.site().has_mediawiki_message("spamprotectiontitle")\
  File "/home/misza13/pywikipedia/wikipedia.py", line 5449, in has_mediawiki_message
    v = self.mediawiki_message(key)
  File "/home/misza13/pywikipedia/wikipedia.py", line 5417, in mediawiki_message
    tree = XML(decode)
  File "<string>", line 85, in XML
SyntaxError: undefined entity &nbsp;: line 663, column 145