Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

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

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

Frequently asked questions (FAQ) (see also: Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical)
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 Wikipedia: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 Metrics. If you cannot reach Wikipedia services see Reporting a connectivity issue
« Archives, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192

dtenable testing[edit]

Hello, all. I'd like some folks to test this upcoming feature for me. Here's how it works:

  1. Click on
  2. Scroll all the way down to this section and find the [subscribe] button for ==this section==.
  3. Click that.
  4. Post a comment here.
  5. Wait for another editor to do the same.
  6. Tell me what you think.

You should get a note via Special:Notifications (Echo) about the new comment. You shouldn't get notified if someone is just fixing a typo (same rules as trying to ping someone; notifications require a new comment/line).

I understand that on the technical side, you're actually subscribing to the timestamp of the first comment, not the section itself. Consequently, changing the section heading, moving this message to another page, etc., will not prevent you from getting notified about new comments. It doesn't matter what editing tools the other comments are posted with.

BTW, that link will give you the [reply] tool as well; if you like it, then turn it on in Beta Features. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, leaving a comment to test. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for testing. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that's pretty cool! Curious about how the timestamp thing works though - it's not uncommon for comments to share the same timestamp. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
There are some technical details in mw:Extension:DiscussionTools/How it works.
Maybe it includes the whole signature? But even then, someone could (with full-page editing) start several separate ==Sections== in the same edit, resulting in multiple identical signatures. Or we could copy it somewhere and have two copies of the same discussion. I'm not sure if it would track both, or neither, or pick one. @Matma Rex, do you have a prediction, or should we try to break it ourselves? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Subscribed and posting to test. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
No discernible alert - is there a delay? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
No one had replied yet... now you should get a notification? Elli (talk | contribs) 21:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
and another persion replied —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Cool - I got the notifications. I thought it would alert me when any comments were added to the subscribed thread, mine or otherwise. The only thing I would have to think about is if it will overmessage people. Is there an easy way to unsubscribe if the discussion gets too busy? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, the unsubscribe button is right there, too, from the same link. I'd assume if the feature was turned on generally, it would always be there. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes - you have to click the original link to see it - gotcha. Cool. This could be interesting, particularly when new users don't know to tag people. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
You can also unsubscribe directly from the notification, without having to view the subscribed-to page. Click on the "..." and then "Unsubscribe". MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 21:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I also saw that you can unsubscribe from the notifications drop-down. I think that's a really nice addition. ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 15:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm assuming that people don't actually want to get a notification when they post in a discussion (because you just posted your comment, so you already know that you did it, right?). But if my assumptions are wrong, please let me know when that would be useful.. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Oooh, cool, you can subscribe to sections now? I did wonder what would happen or how they'd be distinguished if the same person posted multiple sections at once. And would you be auto-subscribed to any sections you create? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Somebody please reply to this :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Never mind, I'll get one of my socks to do it. RoySmith-testing (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Response for Roy. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 14:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not a sock! It's that stupid testing guy. He's always stalking me and calling me a sock. He should be blocked. I'm only here to improve wikipedia. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Screen Shot showing close and subscribe links.png
Wow, this is major-league cool. Being able to subscribe to a thread has long been at or near the top of my wiki-wishlist. Very nice.
Somewhat orthogonal to this, it would be nice if there were a published spec for how to add buttons to a section. The "Close" link in the attached screenshot is from User:DannyS712/DiscussionCloser.js (ping DannyS712). I assume with some CSS tweaks, the visual style of both links could be harmonized, and a published standard would make that happen. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Coolest aspect is that it lets me subscribe to a section without adding the page to my watchlist. Schazjmd (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Cool, it worked! Does this work on mobile too? Opabinia externa (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey, sock, back in the drawer! Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm a dummy, I forgot to click subscribe first. Opabinia externa (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Try this one more time, because socks aren't very smart. (The link in the OP goes to the desktop site, will this also be enabled on mobile?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Success! Opabinia externa (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Testing, attention please! - Klein Muçi (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@RoySmith @DannyS712 You can add the CSS class mw-editsection-like to any element that should look like a section edit link, but not behave like one (e.g. not open the visual editor when clicked). It's what we used for the subscribe links too (I'm one of the developers). Matma Rex talk 12:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@RoySmith Re: this, I think User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/autoCloser.js aligns properly (I use it because it works on mobile devices way better). ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Elli @Whatamidoing (WMF) Sections you subscribe to are identified by the username and the timestamp of the oldest comment. If two sections have identical username and timestamp (even on different pages), and you subscribe to one of them, everything behaves as if you had subscribed to both – you'll get notifications for both of them. Unsubscribing from one also unsubscribes you from all others.
It is perhaps not the ideal behavior, but it allows for sections to be moved, renamed, or archived/unarchived, without losing the subscriptions. And it's more reliable and understandable than if we were trying to detect whether two sections in different pages/revisions are the same using some heuristics. Matma Rex talk 12:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any issue with this. The chance of there being two threads that have the same (username, timestamp) pair seems so small as to be safely ignored. And the fact that the subscription survives archiving is a big win.
In fact, it would be awesome if this technology could be extended to links. People often link to threads on noticeboards. Those links soon go stale when the thread gets archived. Having a way to create a link which survives archiving would be huge. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
We've been thinking about permanent links (phab:T273341), and it should be possible to extend it this way, but it would be a somewhat large project – because right now we don't actually "remember" where each topic appears, we just generate notifications when we see it anywhere. Matma Rex talk 13:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Volunteer-me says that this will come up when people start complex RFCs. The simplest solution might be a social one, however: just discourage people from posting multiple comments (at the top of a ==Section==) in the same edit. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Matma Rex, re. username and the timestamp of the oldest comment: does that mean the first comment after the heading, or the actual oldest? If someone top-posts will it break things? ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 17:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The actual oldest, not the first. Top-posting should not cause trouble (in particular, we were thinking of templates like {{resolved}} and {{discussion top}} when implementing this). Matma Rex talk 17:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks for the answer! ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 10:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
() Clicking subscribe works even without having to post in the section as instructed. This is a Good Thing™.
Unscription becomes something of an adventure if the subscribed timestamp is edited away. I made the mistake of subscribing to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention#User-reported, on the theory I'd see an update relatively quickly; I had to go searching back through old revisions until I found one that still had the original comment before the [ subscribe ] link turned back into [ unsubscribe ]. (I didn't notice until afterwards that there are also unsubscription buttons in the notifications themselves.) I didn't get notifications for edits made after the timestamp was removed, which I guess is probably the right thing to do for the sort of people who make reports to those kinds of sections, but it makes this feature useless for the sorts of people who monitor them. —Cryptic 22:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Given that those aren't really talkpages, perhaps a special "subscribe to this particular section on this page" option would also work (maybe require an invisible keyword or template be placed on the page to prevent it from being used accidentally)? Elli (talk | contribs) 22:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the distinction between talk and non-talk pages is useful. We have lots of pages in non-talk namespaces which support talk-like threaded conversations. Many (but not all) are in Wikipedia space. Tools like this should work equally well on those pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it should work equally well in all namespaces. But a board like UAA (or AIV, RMT, etc) is not structured like a talk page. Therefore, I think a different subscription method for those would be reasonable to implement, instead of trying to pretend they're talkpages. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Maybe a commented-out timestamp, or one in a display:none span. Though that'd probably confuse the poor bots. Not really the original usecase, anyway, just a missed chance for additional awesomeness. —Cryptic 22:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it works in all namespaces, as long as there is a signature in the section. There was a brief bug that displayed the [subscribe] button on all ==Sections== (e.g., including in articles), but if there isn't a signature, you'll never get a notification.
Also, remember that it doesn't produce notifications for changes in sections. It notifies you only for new comments. This means less noise (especially if the editors you're talking to revise edit comments many times), but it wouldn't work for watching a section in an article to see if anyone changes it. You'll still need your watchlist for that. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
How does it handle unsigned comments that get fixed up by SineBot (who, at more than 2 million edits, is one of our most prolific contributors). -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't send a notification (it checks that the username in the signature matches the user who saves the edit). It should notify in this case (and we support comments signed that way for the [reply] links), but if we simply removed that check, it'd result in notifications being sent when someone (or a bot) is copy-paste-archiving a discussion. Resolving this might need to wait until we can "remember" each comment that has existed (same thing we'd need for the permalinks that you mentioned earlier). Matma Rex talk 16:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Roy, there should many be fewer unsigned comments once the Reply tool is deployed default-on for everyone (including new editors). That won't happen here (for at least weeks, maybe months), but it will help a lot with that problem. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
This is a test. Please reply to me and I will let you know if I get a notif. BEEEP! Note: I'm not actually a robot Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Using the 'reply' link to leave a comment. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
This is possibly a comment. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 04:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I told you you should have blocked that sock! Now he's back, making a pest of himself again and stalking me all over. Imma not going to sign this because I don't want to even be associated with him.

I'm late to this party. Does someone need to reply to me with the reply tool for the ping to work, or does any update to the thread prompt a notification? CMD (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Any update (I'm using CD). ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what CD is, but I did get a notification, thanks. CMD (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
c:User:Jack who built the house/Convenient Discussions. ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
A comment here. — xaosflux Talk 13:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It'll notify you regardless of what editing-method someone is using, so long as whatever edit is made looks like it's a new comment. This pretty much means "adds a new list item that ends with a signature" -- so any tool that doesn't do that is already probably being complained about for violating discussion norms. :D
There's a description of how it's working, if you're interested in more details. DLynch (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
A comment. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Holy heck. That's actually rather cool. Didn't appear under my bell icon like I thought but under notices. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
WOOHOO! This is massive! Hats off to everyone who's been working on this. I can personally verify that this is a supremely technically difficult area to make progress in, and it's very, very cool that they've been able to get this far. Congratulations! Enterprisey (talk!) 05:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary subsection[edit]

One disadvantage of working with signatures rather than headers appears to be that the notification does not take you to the talkpage section, although this is perhaps a minor inconvenience. CMD (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
If you visit the page with ?dtenable=1, it actually does (for example, try this). Assuming this feature is turned on generally, it'll work. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Subsection added. — xaosflux Talk 13:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
For some reason that particular link doesn't work, however I tested with other links and it goes right to the comment, which is great. CMD (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It's been working for me. I especially like the blue background highlighting. I got a notification earlier this morning for multiple comments in the thread; not only were the multiple notifications collapsed into one (nice), but each comment was individually highlighted. Very nice. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It will also work if you have the "Discussion tools" beta feature enabled in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures (even though it doesn't enable topic subscriptions yet). I think we didn't consider this when testing the dtenable parameter, sorry! (I'm one of the developers) Matma Rex talk 13:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Testing... --Yair rand (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
We're still subscribed, and still getting notifications.  ;-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


Just curious, what's the relationship of this to WP:Flow? They both seem to fill much the same use case. Is this a successor to Flow? Will they both continue to be developed? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Flow hasn't been actively developed since 2015. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Flow doesn't use normal wikitext talk pages, and this does.
If Flow had been built fully, it would be far more feature-fun. Imagine a world in which AFD didn't require scripts and bots, and the nomination pages would automatically file themselves in the proper list/category when they were ready to be closed. Or that ArbCom's clerks didn't have to manually count how many Arbs had voted which way, because the software did it for them. This work is a great improvement, but it's never going to be even close to what Flow could have been. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm of mixed-mind about Flow. I didn't particularly like the U/I, but I really don't understand why people hated on it so much. The idea of having structured data that you could reliably manipulate and navigate (as in the examples you gave) made so much sense. Tools like this are great, but trying to do automated things on any human-edited text is way more difficult and less reliable than if the structure of the conversation was rigidly enforced by software. No more conversations getting scrambled because somebody 600 lines up the page forgot a closing curly bracket. Or people using random combinations of ":" and "*" to indicate what's replying to what. But you knew that already. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The interface that made it out was not what I had in mind. It's def. not what I designed, and the real Flow doesn't ... work like how the WMF made it work at all. Jorm (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I see a typo in my comment above: "feature-fun" when I meant "feature-ful". But I kind of like it, so I'm not going to fix it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Large number of notifications[edit]

I log in into Wikipedia today and I see 34 notifications, a number which I had never had the chance to see before in Wikipedia and which reminded me of the beginning times of Facebook notifications. Is that what we want from this function? (I'm not against per se.) Maybe we should do the same as Facebook and other social media did and start grouping some notifications together? Maybe you could have only 1 notification per specific subscription with the names of all the new commenters? Maybe you could have 1 for each commenter (not for each comment)? As I said, having a lot of notifications is not a problem for me really but I'm imagining things could get quickly out of hands in pretty dynamic discussions, especially if you haven't logged in for some hours, and there may be users complaining for this. - Klein Muçi (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

They are already grouped for me. Do you mean having the entire group display as just one new notification? CMD (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis, yes I suppose. And maybe not have a specific notification for each reply? I'm talking about having a general notification of this sort:
"X, Y, B and Z replied to [Specific Section]." This would remove the ability to immediately link to a specific reply and just show the discussion in general, maybe the new part of it, but maybe it would be better for some people? Or maybe we could have a preference tab for choosing between these 2 (or more) modes. - Klein Muçi (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if you're using the no-JS interface of notifications? In the JS interface, they are grouped exactly like you're proposing – you only see one notification per section, and it says something like 34 new replies in "‪dtenable testing"., and it highlights all of the replies in the topic when clicked. But it looks like this feature (called "bundling") has never been implemented in the no-JS version. Matma Rex talk 14:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Klein Muçi, are you concerned about the number on the bell/inbox icons? Or about the number of lines shown when you click on them? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Matma Rex, @Whatamidoing (WMF), I didn't spend too much time to look at the details when I wrote this because, as I said, it didn't concern me much personally. But after your comments now, I was examining it more carefully. I got 5 notifications (the number on the inbox icon) and when clicked, they opened as 1 notification which could be expanded in individual notifications in regard to this post. I guess this is similar to what I proposed, as you mention. My idea was to get 1 notification icon and 1 notification in total per post but I guess this can be fine as well. - Klein Muçi (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I've been using this feature to subscribe to lots of sections and am loving it so far! I think it'd be best to have only one bell/inbox icon but to keep the behavior the same after you actually open up notifications. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I've only subscribed to a few, but can say that the notifications and their grouping is working well for me on both Timeless and mobile/Minerva. (The font for the [subscribe] link in Timeless is wrong; I've delayed logging a ticket, will hopefully do that soon.) I like the idea of having alerts separated from notices so that I can prioritise pings, etc. but, on the other hand, having them all together in Minerva doesn't seem unnatural.
⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 15:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Master list[edit]

I've been continuing to enjoy this feature. One thing I'd like to see is a way to access a list of all the discussions to which you've subscribed, similar to how it's possible to see a list of all the pages you've watchlisted. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb I'm glad you posted about the prospect of being able to see all of the topics you have subscribed to. In fact, we have a prototype ready for this very thing that I'm keen to hear what you, and others here, think about it.
Although, before sharing that with you, are you able to share what inspired you to request seeing, "...a way to access a list of all the discussions to which you've subscribed." ? What would you value a page like this helping you to do and/or see? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@PPelberg (WMF) My own thought would be that being able to see what discussions one has subscribed too, and being able to unsubscribe, allows one to reduce the number of notifications one is liable to get. So quite a valuable tool, I'd have felt. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Backup, mainly; that's the only thing I ever access my list of watchlisted pages for, too (since I'm terrified I'll accidentally click the "clear watchlist" button one day). In this case, my thought process was "I'm already starting to rely on this a lot, so I hope they don't wipe the list of subscribed sections when they move this out of beta. If I had a way to access a list I'd make a backup. Oh, that's something everyone should probably be able to see, so I'll request it". {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking for help for a small wiki[edit]

Hey folks. I'm working with, and I'm wondering if there's a tool / process / other way to pull together all articles which use a particular template (in this case, Template:Fix Scots) and then display or sort them according to their categories, so as to make choosing which one to work on easier - I was thinking something along the lines of Citation Hunt. PetScan tells me that there's currently 2764 articles using this template, also. Any help would be appreciated! Sara Thomas (WMUK) (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sara Thomas (WMUK): so [WhatLinksHere] will shows you all the articles that transclude that, but then what do you want with categories? A page can be in tons of categories, for example the first article, w:sco:Auld Alliance has 21 categories. — xaosflux Talk 13:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Thanks for replying :) Yeah, up to now we've been using WhatLinksHere, but I'm wondering if there's a way to visualise the list / split it up to make it easier for editors to pull out things about which they're interested / have knowledge. For example, on Citation Hunt you can search for a topic, but I'm not sure how that's been done (I don't code), I'd assumed that it was by category. I'm wondering if there's a way to display these FixScots articles in different ways, such that an editor could say "ah, ok, I like writing about Physics, I'll look at physics articles" - something like that. Hmmm. Because of the size of in comparison to I'm not sure how much crossover there'd be with particular categories, so as I think more about it, perhaps there's a wikidata-based solution, looking to group a defined set of articles/Q numbers in terms of P31 "instance of"? But that would have the disadvantage of not being a dynamic list, as I'd need to run the search in PetScan, then load the list of Q numbers into a SPARQL query each time (at least, that's how I'd approach it). Sara Thomas (WMUK) (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
You can search for hastemplate:"Fix Scots" with a keyword. Nardog (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Nardog: ah, interesting. Thanks :) Sara Thomas (WMUK) (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Nothing like that exists today for arbitrary categories. There's a similar thing if you have WikiProjects set up like at WP:WikiProject Video games/Backlog (features Petscan) or Bambots. The Growth work might also be interesting. ORES might be able to be built off... but yeah, nothing that exists ad hoc that I know of.
Special:Search can also do rudimentary category intersection with incategory and deepcategory and apparently can find stuff based on articletopic (ORES-based maybe??). Izno (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Izno:This is helpful, thankyou, and yes, that growth work is very interesting! Sara Thomas (WMUK) (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The articletopic search keyword that Izno mentions above is likely what you want. On enwiki, we have {{filter category by topic}} that combines articletopic and incategory keywords. You can import it to your wiki and modify Template:Fix_Scots so that it applies a category -- and then place {{filter category by topic}} on the category page. – SD0001 (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@SD0001: aaaah, ok... I shall do some more investigating... thankyou! Much appreciated. Sara Thomas (WMUK) (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sara Thomas (WMUK), more generally, have you looked at the m:Small wiki toolkits? That may be useful. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF): I'll check with the admins, I can see that they have some of the growth tools enabled, I'll let them know! thanks :) Sara Thomas (WMUK) (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The Image Sizes[edit]

The image length cannot be changed without affecting the image width, request the ability to change the image length without affecting the image width as well as the ability to change the image width without affecting the image length.Mohmad Abdul sahib 08:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to display only part of an image that already exists on Wikipedia. {{CSS image crop}} or {{Annotated image}} might work for you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
No, for example, I want to change the width of the image without forcibly changing the length of the image, leave notifications for me next time.Mohmad Abdul sahib — Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 13 September 2021
@Mohmad Abdul sahib: Nothing to do with your problem, but please read through WP:SIGNATURE. I've just made two fixes to your signatures in this little section. (Also, you can easily add the pages you edit to your watchlist: Help:Watchlist.) Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Mohmad Abdul sahib: And about your problem: aren't you worried about stretching or squishing the image? It will be distorted if you change only one dimension. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
JohnFromPinckney I know about this, this problem was in old versions of Adobe Photoshop and the problem of this distortion has been resolved in newer versions, so you can use the same technique.Mohmad Abdul sahib 19:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
That's not how the wiki software works and it will not work that way any time soon. Aspect ratio is important. If you think a free image would look better with a different aspect ratio, you may crop them and subsequently contribute them to Commons. (Don't modify non-free images.)
Please do not amend the timestamps of previous posts. Izno (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Izno The image dimensions are distorted if the display is changed excessively, but if the size is slightly changed, the image will not be distorted.Mohmad Abdul sahib 10:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
No, it still distorts the image.
I will not be responding further since you don't seem to be interested in listening. Izno (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Izno With the presence of this algorithm (Seam carving), doing this kind of resizing the image does not cause it to be distorted, so I ask to be able to resize the image with this algorithm.Mohmad Abdul sahib 13:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

New tool to identify sockpuppets based on writing style[edit]

Checkusers on the English Wikipedia will soon have access to a new tool aimed at identifying misuse of multiple accounts based on a person's writing style. masz, developed by Ladsgroup, uses natural language processing to create an individual 'fingerprint' of a user based on the way they use language on talk pages. Checkusers can log into a web interface to compare the fingerprints of two accounts or list accounts with similar fingerprints. The tool is already live on several projects and is expected to start running on enwiki after phab:T290793 is resolved. – Joe (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm not involved in the development of this tool, so I can't answer any questions about how it works beyond this. – Joe (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a GDPR violation but okay. (article 22 on automated decision-making and profiling) Stifle (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    I'm quite certain that it is not a violation. Art. 22 par. 1 GDPR provides: "The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her." In our use case, the decision to block is not "based solely on automated processing", because it is made by a human checkuser considering the fingerprint together with other evidence. Also, a block from editing Wikipedia is not a "legal effect" or something of similar significance. In any case, the GDPR does not apply in the US, where the Wikimedia Foundation is located. Sandstein 08:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    Besides while not blocking accounts, we are already blocking and tagging edits based solely automated processing, including profiling so if the GDPR applies to actions we take against editors, we already have problems. Definitely some of those affected e.g. the editor complaining about being libelled recently on ANI because their edit was tagged as a possible vandalism or BLP violation and some of those trying to add nonsense to Adam's Bridge or complaining about the Ahmadiyya Caliphate seem to think they've been significantly affected by our automated processing. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    Uh, how could that possibly apply? "The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects' concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her." The tool does not automatically ban people; an administrator has to ultimately review and apply the ban based on all available evidence. Therefore it will never be the sole determinant. And in any case being banned from Wikipedia, while some people may not like it, is not a legal effect or anything of remotely comparable impact. --Aquillion (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I have no doubt that this is legal (per Sandstein, although whether the WMF is bound by the GDPR is murky; many US-based newspapers stopped serving EU-geolocated IP addresses when it went into effect, I suppose because of a possible argument that the content and ads being read at a EU location creates EU jurisdiction).
We can certainly ask whether it is wise, though. False positives are bound to happen and I do not look forward to bans based on unclear behavioural evidence because computer says so. Also, it is well-known that such systems are subject to bias laundering; for instance, if the training set contains few examples of the Cheshire dialect, then two users using that dialect becomes irresistible evidence of socking. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The highest EU court (CJEU) has argued that GDPR applies to non EU companies, when it involved EU subjects in Google v CNIL (C-507/17).[1] The territoriality of that has deep implications, but I have no doubt that the WMF legal has examined these. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ Globocnik, Jure (2020-02-10). "The Right to Be Forgotten is Taking Shape: CJEU Judgments in GC and Others (C-136/17) and Google v CNIL (C-507/17)". GRUR International. 69 (4): 380–388. doi:10.1093/grurint/ikaa002. ISSN 2632-8623.

Given these fingerprints are based solely on public information(correct me if I am wrong), is there a good reason to limit it to checkusers? Other edit analysis tools are not limits. I would be interested in checking a few hunches.

Regarding concerns of people being blocked based on computer evidence, I am assuming this will be used as an investigation tool and not used as the sole evidence of a block. We already point out similar writing styles when making a sock case, this would only help us find them not decide what weight we give them. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • *Whistles and admires slippery slope* I might have less of an issue with the idea of something like this, if it didn't sound so much like giving CSI-style tools to untrained admins. The suggestion that this be expanded to all users (rather than just checkusers) makes me even more leery. I'm no expert, but my job means I deal with dozens of writing samples every day. It's hard for me - with two pieces of writing side-by-side - to tell the difference sometimes. It's also my experience that cultural factors play a huge part in determining why someone might write like someone else. Were they educated in the same school system? Did they have the same English teacher? Did they participate in the same ICU chat-groups as a teenager? Did they use the same app to learn English? Did they learn English from the same base language? I see those dozens of writing samples every day and I could find you similarities between any two selected at random, simply because of context. Alcohol, recreational and prescription drugs, stress, emotion, fatigue, and fluency of language are all factors in making a piece of writing similar to another, or different. You can't change your IP address based on how many drinks you've had. The same person can write two different things under different conditions and have them be very different. But two different people can write about similar things under similar conditions and the writing they produce will be very similar. Stlwart111 10:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Do not trust algorithms to pick up on the nuances of language usage and language evolution among disparate individuals. Random example: in the pre-2010s, I was using the word programme a lot (was doing a lot of UK'ish content work then), but in the post-2010s I pretty much exclusively use program. Is that something this computer programmmmme will not want? I'm Skynet'ing this. El_C 11:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • El_C, exactly. And what does it tell us if your use of the word programme is similar to someone else's use of the word programme? Is that confirmation they are the same person, or is it simply confirmation that they fall within the same demographic category. Does falling within several of the same demographic categories make the pair more or less likely to be the same person? Is that confirmation they are the same person, or simply confirmation they are in a similar demographic category and so similarities should be dismissed? Stlwart111 01:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Stylometry is difficult – people have spent decades trying to improve AI methods for authorship identification/attribution (with, albeit, some promising results), and professional forensic linguists have dedicated whole careers to end up producing what can sometimes be low confidence or ultimately inadmissible evidence in court regarding authorship analysis. The method Ladsgroup is using, looks to be extremely simple from the displayed graphs (counting the relative frequency of commonly used words) though his code is private so who knows. I would be extremely cautious in using this tool to infer two accounts are likely sockpuppets due to language similarities, and extremely cautious in using this tool to infer two accounts are unlikely to be sockpuppets due to a lack of similarity in their language. "Use this tool but do not generally trust its output" sounds like the perfect way to bolster your confirmation bias—"They're similar? That's proof they're sockpuppets! They're dissimilar? Well, this tool is imperfect..."—so I heavily question the worth this program has for SPIs. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Well said. The usage of the Editor interaction utility at SPI and beyond just confounds me. As I've said elsewhere recently (AN diff in response to its misuse, aside from being a novelty, the thing is pretty much useless. El_C 12:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I think it does have uses, but only with caution. I find it useful as a starting point when I suspect two accounts are sockpuppets - a way to find places to look where they may have interacted in ways that support them being sockpuppets (eg. a user overtly restoring the exact edit of a banned user a year later, or one sock glaringly hyping up or defending another across multiple unrelated pages.) For example, in a recent case I noticed an account with very few edits defending another account; glancing at the interaction utility's results let me easily see that they had done this across multiple pages and helped me build a case. I could have done this without the tool, but it would have been more time-consuming. You said in your post that there's no shortcut to diff evidence, but the Editor Overlap Tool is in fact exactly such a shortcut, in that it makes it easier to find relevant diffs that can be used as actual evidence. When I suspect that two editors are sockpuppets of each other it's also useful as an at-a-glance way to help me figure out if it's worth the time to try and build a case. I'd never just point to it in a SPI case, since that's barely more useful than pointing at an editor's entire edit history - going over the interactions and finding relevant diffs (or if they even exist) is fairly time-consuming - but it is useful in the early stages of an investigation. I would expect the "list accounts with similar fingerprints" thing would be similar to eg. taking an account who is behaving in ways that make you suspect a sockpuppet, and checking what blocked users (who were blocked before they began editing) have edited pages they edit - useful as one possible starting point for an investigation, no more. Actual evidence would still be required to go from there. --Aquillion (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Fair point. I suppose my point is that I see a ton of its misuse, often resulting in distortion that leads to conflict for naught. The example highlighted in that AN diff I cited above illustrates this pretty well, I think — I'd also point to the preceding comment by Softlavender (on the misuse of the interaction tool as suffered by GS) to which my note was in response to. Anyway, returning to Volteer1's point: inaccurate reading accompanied by confirmation bias is a paramount concern when it comes to analyses that are in part AI-derived. Would hammering these caveats be enough to make adoption of this tool worthwhile? I have my doubts, but I suppose time will tell. El_C 15:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
          • I guess useful as an at-a-glance way to help me figure out if it's worth the time to try and build a case. I'd never just point to it in a SPI case, since that's barely more useful than pointing at an editor's entire edit history... Actual evidence would still be required to go from there is a fairly benign use for such a tool that wouldn't exactly be what I was worrying about. I don't know enough about SPI to know if that is the extent of how it would be used, but if it's just a pointer to see if gathering actual evidence is more likely to be worth your time it's probably not that problematic (though you may want to empirically test its usefulness first). ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
            That's definitely how I use the Editor Interaction Analyzer. Sure, anyone can run it on two editors, wave their hand at the amount of overlap, and say "See‽", but that really only plays well among conspiracy theorists on Wikipediocracy. At SPI, it's little more than a starting point. In some cases where an overlap is particularly obvious (say, a dozen AfDs where two low-edit-count accounts commented a minute apart), it might "speak for itself", just as an editor's contribs might. But no one's getting indeffed because they happen to have some overlap with some other editor. In general, it's just a good way to find diffs to look at. For instance, I filed an SPI that had massive overlap among the accounts, but that wasn't in itself surprising because they all edited in the same topic area; you would have found lots of overlap comparing them to their opponents in the area too. Instead I had to go through each page and each diff to figure out whether the overlap looked innocent or whether there were signs of sock/meatpuppetry. Ultimately there will never be a substitute for that; just tools that help us aggregate suspicious diffs better. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I may not use the tool myself but I don't see any concern, at least not any that doesn't also apply to the checkuser tool itself. Checkuser already reveals when one person is using multiple accounts, and then it's up to the human operator to determine if the use constitutes a violation of the multiple accounts policy, which is what blocks are based on. Neither checkuser nor this new tool actually create blocks. I am concerned though with making the results of this program available to the public, it would definitely be used for abuse, like to out editors with valid undisclosed privacy accounts. If access is limited to checkusers (who are selected for proficiency in handling sensitive information) then it's less of a concern, but I guess the fact that Ladsgroup created this means that anyone else could create their own if they really wanted to. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    It is probable that such a tool could be easily created, or already has been. I believe Ladsbroke is absolutely entitled legally and morally to use it (assuming it does not break API query rate limits), and share the code to the world if they so wish (security by obscurity is not a solution). Whether "we" (the community? the WMF? the developers?) should approve its use for official CU-like purposes is another issue entirely.
You are supposed to only use CU when you have sufficient evidence already. In contrast, such a tool would be used to create such evidence (otherwise, one would go straight to CU), and therefore would need to be run against everyone (or everyone who edited such-and-such article, or meets certain criteria that would be insufficient for a CU).
Checkuser creates log which can, at least in theory, be audited; "fishing expeditions" initiated without behavioural evidence would bring unwanted attention to their author. In contrast, I fail to envision a use policy for that tool that would meaningfully restrict its use. (If such a policy is produced, I will gladly withdraw my objection to its use by checkusers or admins or potentially anyone.) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 16:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it sounds useful, but it is important to train people properly in its use (and, more importantly, its limitations), the same way we do with existing SPI tools. It is just one flawed and limited indicator... but since all our indicators are, generally, flawed and limited in some way, it is useful to have if used properly and in concert with them. --Aquillion (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • When the tool is available for enwiki, someone should run it on, say, 100 closed sockpuppet cases (to see how many false negatives it produces), and on 100 definitely-not-sockpuppetcases (both sock cases which turned out to be false, and e.g. between 2 different CUs) to check how mony false positives you get. Only then can some decision be made whether it can be trusted somewhat or not at all. Fram (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    I don't know if I will individually get up to 100 of each but a version of this is definitely my plan once it's available on enwiki. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you Joe for bringing this up. Regardless of its accuracy, I have several issues with this tool.
    Firstly, and perhaps the most disconcerting, this tool appears to build a digital fingerprint of every single enwiki editor with more than a minor number of edits. (I believe the threshold is 100, but obviously it could be raised or lowered depending on the number of edits required for the tool to build the fingerprint.) Currently, checkusers and other editors comparing writing styles can only compare suspect accounts—it is an impossibility to compare a suspect sock against every other Wikipedia editor. This keeps investigations focused.
    Secondly, this fingerprint is perpetual, which is in direct contrast to the checkuser tool, which only stores IP and user agent information for 90 days. I don't know how this interacts with GDPR, since I am neither a lawyer nor European.
    Thirdly, the information that can be gained from a digital fingerprint of your writing style is significantly more profiling than even most checkuser data. Checkuser data tells checkusers who view it your rough geographic location and the web browser that you use. In rare cases, it can also tell us what company you work for or school you go to, if your company or school owns their own subnet. Other than that case, checkuser data tells us nothing about your age, gender, and other personally identifiable information. A digital fingerprint of your writing style and articles edited can potentially be used to build a significantly more detailed profile of you. (See what Google and Facebook do as examples.) Your writing style alone gives a strong indication of your gender and age. It also tells what your native language likely is, where and how you learned English, and potentially more information about you as a person. A technique very similar to this is what advertising companies do to display ads relevant to you on websites. Obviously, this particular tool does not attempt to profile editors, and I am in no way attempting to claim that checkusers are building shadow profiles of every user. I am simply pointing out what information could be gleaned from a fingerprint.
    Sorry, but as I mentioned several months ago when this idea was first proposed on the checkuser mailing list, I don't think it's a good idea. I do not think that most users on here were aware of the potential power of machine learning when they made their first edits. Yes, I am aware that all edits are public. No, I don't think that we should do something just because we can. I am open to being convinced otherwise if the community does not mind the use of tool(s) like this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Am I missing a link to a page with more information on how the tool works, or is that too limited to checkusers? meta:User:Ladsgroup/masz presents two sample graphs, which do not present a clear threshold for distinction (there are differences between the socks, and close similarities between the non-socks). That suggests a lot of interpretation would still be needed, going back to diff comparisons or similar. I do feel, similar to as has been noted above, that there is great potential use for such a tool in indicating possible other socks, similar to the way CU checks currently do. A tool which pointed out for example where a sock diff had been fully/partially reinstated for example would save a lot of time diff searching. However, if the use is just to point out areas that would be great for analysis, this is not too helpful if limited just to CUs, who don't seem to have the time to efficiently cover the existing SPI process where diffs are expected to be already found. Given what sounds like limited benefit, and the potential drawbacks covered above, I am wary of adding further to CU/admin burden. CMD (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I support improved tooling for SPI and CheckUser. Although, given the potential of state-of-the-art NLP, I think this should be subject to usage auditing comparable to that of the rest of CheckUser technical evidence. MarioGom (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I know I had comments about this idea when it was first initially proposed, but I don't really want to trudge through (probably mailing list) archives to find it. While this tool may be useful, I'm concerned about two things: false positives and fishing. CheckUser is a technical tool requiring human interpretation to be useful. This tool is not. We've had problems in the past with people seeing large numbers in toolforge:copyvios and thinking that means something, without actually checking. This tool, as I understand it, allows for that same big number bias. I also don't want to see this tool being used as a pretext for CheckUser checks that would otherwise be called fishing. I don't think this tool should be used by any CUs until and unless it has been established that it is sensitive enough and does not introduce new bias and there is policy guidance for its use. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    Those comments were in this wikitech-l thread. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • There is definitely an ethical element to this debate. On the one hand, we have public information, which can be manipulated and analysed. It's fair to say that our users (checkusers, yes, but also other editors) do analyse edits, compare stylistic and linguistic differences - which is roughly what I understand this tool to do. What's more, it's also fair to say that AI has been a massive boon to Wikipedia over the years. I have considered writing a similar program myself, but never had the time or energy to put something like it together.
    On the other hand, there's the question of "should we do something just because we can?". This tool will mass profile our editors. Call it a digital fingerprint if you like, but it is an identifier available. I don't expect our Checkuser team to abuse such information, but I can think of many abuses of it - As a member of the Arbitration Committee, I've seen many disclosures of Legitimate Alternate Accounts, where individuals would be targeted in real life if their editing was known. I can certainly imagine situations where having that sort of information could be used by unscrupulous individuals for harassment. What's more, depending on the output of this fingerprint, it could be used beyond Wikipedia - to identify individuals who have written blog posts and twitter posts.
    What's more, Wikipedia has a unique setup - it's history cannot be deleted easily, every page is a culmination of every edit that happened in the history. As such, we don't offer a real ability to remove yourself from Wikipedia - we don't have the option to have all your edits deleted. Combined with the fact that edits made years ago would not have come close to expecting this digital fingerprint, we are saying that 1) we're going to profile you and 2) there's nothing you can do about it. But it's ok, because we won't use it to do anything besides check if you've been abusing our Sockpuppetry policies - and only be given to a select number of individuals.
    Perhaps the cat is out of the bag - AI is progressing at an exponential rate, and if it wasn't this tool, it would be someone else's. But let's be clear, there are things we should be considering here. I, for one, am extremely uncomfortable. WormTT(talk) 09:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit concerned that there hasn't been any published information on the effectiveness of the tool or on a plan to validate its effectiveness. New tools for checkusers can be good, but we ought to ensure the tools are evaluated (with a feedback loop for improvements), and proper guidance given to checkusers on how to take best advantage of the tools. isaacl (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I remember attending a presentation at Wikimania a couple years ago on the subject of algorithm-assisted sockpuppetry detection. It left an impression on me more than most of the sessions I was in. It strikes me as extremely important to improve our sock puppet detection capabilities, as one of our most glaring weaknesses and, if I may be a little dramatic, one of the greatest threats to the integrity of the project amid declining good faith participation and shrinking admin pool. I had reservations at the Wikimania session largely due to the premise, which if I recall correctly was about automatic detection that would then be checked. Having such software always running and detecting matches would cause any problems with the algorithms to cause damage at a large scale, and errs on the side of outing legit socks. (Tangent: I still think we don't have clear enough processes documented about legit socks, rules for use, limits, and protections thereof. It's one of the only reasons I don't advocate for more liberal usage of checkuser in general.) That said, the way I'm reading this, it's just another tool in the checkuser toolbox, employed as needed when a suspicion arises. More information is good. Like others, I'm curious to see this in action, but love that it's happening. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I take what's being said about our need to identify socks. Is this tool reliable in doing so or will it find too many false positives? There are so many opportunities. Most obviously, editors with a (non-English) first language in common will often write English with similarly distinctive vocabulary, grammar and sentence structure carried over from their first language, as well as often having similar national concerns. Many of us switch registers to communicate and fit in; our Wikipedia "voice" may be only one of our voices and it may subtly conform with others. The tool should be tested on editors well-understood to be different but editing in the same areas, as well as on the more exciting cases of sockmasters who made a special effort to write differently (eg).
    If the tool works well, could it dox? Suppose an editor (not me) used to edit under their real name, took a long break and came back with an ordinary pseudonym. If the tool runs on all history, would it link those accounts? NebY (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    It would not be useful for fishing out random connections as the tool would not be that precise. It would not be able to distinguish 100,000s of different editors. So it could connect edits, but not very precisely say that this is the same person, as there could be hundreds that write the same way. If there is additional suspicion, eg edits to the same article then it would be much more likely that it was the same person if the editing was in the same style. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    Currently all it does is give you a list of users with similar language patterns, and depending on what areas of the project they are active on it is of limited usefulness. There's still a substantial degree of human judgement involved, and I would never base a check or block solely on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll try to summarize my various thoughts on this from the list here: all of this information is public, and there were academics studying how to do this before Ladsgroup started it. A significant number of the edits we make are already put under analysis by a machine either automatically or at the discretion of anyone with an internet connection (see: ORES, ClueBot, Editor Interaction Utility, Interaction Timeline, and I'm sure there are others.)
    While I get there are different views on the ethics of using data, everything on Wikipedia is by it's very definition public, and we can assume that users who have been here long enough (for whom the privacy concerns mainly apply), are aware that everything they post is public. Every time they push the edit button, they agree to make their contributions public and be used in any way they want. I personally don't see an issue with that, especially when there's a human at the other end making the ultimate judgement call. Ultimately, there's really not all that much the community can do on this: while Ladsgroup would likely be willing to disable it on if asked, eventually someone is going to create something like this and make it available for anti-abuse purposes, and they won't be willing to turn it off, nor would there be anyway to require them to, and efforts to restrict people from using it would be just as ethically dubious: telling people what they can or can't do on their home computers with data that is public and where the actions don't directly impact others really isn't something that as a community we should be trying to do, in my view.
    So, yes, I think letting people know this is a capability that someone's developed is fine. It's also been a capability others have been testing for a while. There's not really much new here except Ladsgroup has made it easy to do. There's also really not much that can be done about it from a policy angle, and I personally don't see any ethical issues with analyzing publicly available data by people who knew that their posts would be public. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    I agree that checkusers (or any editor) can use any tool they want off-wiki, and there isn't a lot of scope to try to limit this. I think it would be helpful nonetheless for there to be guidance on the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of popular tools, as well as guidance on best practices in using them. isaacl (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'd agree. I think that's something we could talk to Ladsgroup about/develop as it is used. Still relatively new globally, and hasn't been rolled out on TonyBallioni (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
My first thought is being reminded of some bits of that business in 2019 (1, 2, 3... I wasn't around then and maybe I shouldn't bring the matter up. I don't know...). I don't know what to think about this present tool, but I suppose I lean Worm-wards. —2d37 (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Search not working?[edit]

I'm getting the following error this morning, logged out or in, when trying to search:

An error has occurred while searching: Search is currently too busy. Please try again later.

Is it just too busy or is this something more than it seems? Home Lander (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I got this several times a few minutes ago.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm experiencing the same thing. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Refreshing the browser 1,000 times ought to fix it 😜 same here! ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Home Lander, Vchimpanzee, and Shushugah: Apparently "turn it off and turn it back on again" can cause problems as well as fix them. Draft incident documentation is here. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
My bot ran into this too. The API error code was cirrussearch-too-busy-error if anyone is interested. – SD0001 (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Odd redirect behaviour[edit]

When I click on this link:

I briefly see the section in question, on Hindu synthesis. But after a split second, it jumps further down the page to a different section. Is anyone else getting this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Works for me - are you having the problem if using this safemode link? — xaosflux Talk 00:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
That link shouldn't redirect you at all when it has redirect=no. Do you mean the link on that page to History of Hinduism#Hindu synthesis? There are several collapsed parts earlier in the page. This has given problems in the past when some browsers collapse the parts after placing you a certain way down the page, and don't adjust the position afterwards. One case of this was fixed by phab:T67468. What is your browser? It works for me in Firefox where I can see on the vertical scroll bar indicator that the position is adjusted shortly after loading the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Safari from 11.6 (yesterday's patch). And yes, that second link. Safemode worked. Could this be because I have TOC turned off? If so, bug? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: when safemode fixes something, it is usually related to a gadget or one of your user scripts. You can try turning off your scripts in User:Maury Markowitz/common.js and User:Maury Markowitz/vector.js, then see if it works. If it does, turn them back on one at a time and see if you can find the one that is causing the trouble. It looks like you are mostly importing other people's personal scripts - so if you find the one causing the problem you should follow up with the author of that script directly for assistance. — xaosflux Talk 13:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

FAQ Template in Greek Wikipedia[edit]

Good afternoon everyone.

I am mostly active on the Greek Wikipedia and i would like to ask you a question if it possible. I am trying to find a way to incorporate into the talk page of an article an FAQ , like the one in the talkpage of the article on nazism . Could you help me? Thank you in advance. Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ιπποκράτης2020: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! Those boxes are generated using Template:FAQ, if you would like to use them on the Greek Wikipedia you will need to import and translate the template. Perhaps someone familiar with templates on the Greek Wiki could help? (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you anonymous user. I will try to incorporate it and if it works i will notify you. Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ιπποκράτης2020 have a look at the English Template:FAQ and another language version, e.g. Danish source code da:Skabelon:FAQ to see what may need to change between them for copying to Greek namespace. The Greek FAQ template could be located at el:Πρότυπο:FAQ (or something different than FAQ) ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Shushugah: Thank you , i will look into it as well. Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Shushugah: Do you happen to know where can i find the source code for the english template? Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ιπποκράτης2020 If you click "edit source" you'll find it, or click here. I don't have time now, but later can try and see if I can create a Greek template for you otherwise (I don't speak Greek, but the code tends to be in latin characters). If you want to understand what the parser functions are doing you can read the documentation here Help:Magic words#Parser functions and open "source code" of a random Greek template to get an idea, for example this one is the greek source code of Interlanguage link template ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Shushugah: Thank you so much! I incorporated the FAQ in the article i wanted. Thanks everyone! Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Can you link to the edit/article in mind? If a Greek FAQ template now exists, it would be good to link it to the other language versions on Wikidata. If you can do it, it's at Template:FAQ (Q13420694). ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, of Course. I utilized a different template but it works for what i wanted it for [1] It starts from "Συχνές ερωτήσεις" (rom. Sichnes erotiseis) , Frequently Asked Questions. Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

tt tags do not work in mobile[edit]

I noticed that <tt>...</tt> do not work in mobile website. It displays as plaintext. Compare this in mobile and desktop view. Examples 1 and 2 have same display in mobile.

I checked this in mobile and desktop view in my android phone, Opera browser. It displays correctly in desktop view. In windows 10 chrome and edge browsers with vector skin, it works in normal desktop view but doesn't work in mobile view. So the problem here doesn't seem to related to specific devices or browsers. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  • tt is deprecated, so I expect that it is not included in the mobilefrontend styling. The tt html tag itself is sent to the browser, so if client-side styling is happening it still should appear. You can use some other elements, see User:Xaosflux/sandbox110 for some examples. — xaosflux Talk 15:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    What's actually happening is that mobile uses one of the popular-years-ago CSS resets to make <tt> inherit the parent element's styling, which doesn't include fancy monospace font.
    You should simply never use the element, however, so this is a non-issue. It is obsolete HTML and there are more than a few alternatives. Izno (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for the info. I was thinking about a bot task to replace this tag. Sitewide search gives 250k+ results with timeout error [1]. Most of this is because of substed templates and user signatures, which can be replaced by bots without worrying about WP:CONTEXTBOT issues. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    The trick with replacement of <tt>...</tt> is that you need to know what to replace it with. {{mono}}, <code>...</code>, or something else? As far as I know, it depends on the context. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    The <tt>...</tt> element was deprecated in HTML 4 (December 1997) and made obsolete in HTML 5 (October 2014). This means that browser vendors need not support it unless the web page is explicitly marked as being HTML 3.2 or earlier in its DOCTYPE and the browser vendor has stated that they support HTML 3.2. Most browsers designed for mobile devices were developed in the HTML 4.01 era, or later, so I wouldn't expect them to provide retro support.
    When semantics are important, the choice is between the <CODE> element (a fragment of computer code), the <SAMP> element (sample or quoted output from another program or computing system) or the <KBD> element (user input) - most browsers display all three of these in a monospaced font (notwithstanding any style sheets that may override this). Where it's used purely for presentation, and there is no semantic meaning, <span style="font-family:monospace;">...</span> is satisfactory. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    See also WP:MONO. Izno (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    In mainspace, we're down to some 600. An enterprising gnome could take care of that today.
    The vast majority of the others are not in important places, and so the fundamental issue is a low priority today. Izno (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank feature[edit]

I appreciate the Thank feature that allows editors to thank fellow editors for good edits. I like to use it to thank editors who quickly revert vandalism, especially vandalism targeting other Wikipedia editors, or for a thoughtful comment that helps defuse a dispute among editors. However, it's not possible to thank IP editors. I find plenty of instances when an IP editor has taken this action and I can't thank them for their good edit.

Would it be possible to extend the Thank feature to all accounts? I know that we treat IP accounts as shared accounts but I don't think it would be an insurmountable hurdle to have a log of Thanks for an IP address. I can only think of positive effects of allowing us to thank IP editors for the good work they do and it might help IP editors feel less marginalized on the project. Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I find it best to thank IP editors in prose on their talk page. I know it takes longer but it does clarify things - especially considering that the next person who uses the IP might not be the same editor who is being thanked. MarnetteD|Talk 20:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
IP Editors do not have access to Echo, which is what thanks messages are sent through. There are significant technical challenges to doing so: granting a feature that is dynamic by definition to non-logged in users (who are served static, cached pages) is a heavy load to take on. Jorm (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
(Note that the modern operations team may have solved these problems, or even the skins, or Echo itself, but at the time when I designed it (some 10 years now) it was a major problem and the reason why I never investigated IP editors beyond "can it even be done") Jorm (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it mostly needs developer love and attention to get done, T58828 has some more details and previous attempts. Legoktm (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all for taking the time to explain how the system works to me. I often have found that what seems simple to a non-technical person is actually much more complicated that it appears. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Why does it behave differently at different times?[edit]

Sometimes I click it and it goes to a new page asking me if I want to thank the editor. Other times it doesn't, just lets me thank. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This happens when the JavaScript setup for the thank feature was not completed. There are 2common causes for this. First it might just be that ur page is loading slow (slow internet, slow device, or u being too fast). The 2nd is that u have installed a user script which sometimes fails and then brings down the setup of other scripts (like thanks) with it. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 08:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I get this sometimes when adding/removing an item on my Watchlist. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I can live with it although I have had problems with hitting the wrong link because of a slow change in position and instead of thanking reverting. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

new discussion tool: where is "subscribe"?[edit]

hi all.

activated "new discussion tools" from pref => beta, which promise "Receive notifications when new comments are added in sections you have subscribed to."

i do see the "reply" linkette after each respond, and i do get the new "add topic" interface.

however, i do not see the "subscribe" linkette i expect on the right-hand-side of each section.

IMO, the ability to "subscribe" to a specific topic in a large discussion page (such as this one), is the most appealing part of "new discussion tool". it is available on other wikis (to see it, go to the french interwiki of this page, for example. if "new discussion tools" is enabled in your preferences on frwiki, you'll see a "subscribe" linkette, on each section header, which practically adds this section to your watchlist).

is it just me? do everyone else see the "topic subscribe" on enwiki? if so, how can i fix it? if not, why doesn't this feature work on enwiki? it does work in other wikis - i regularly use it. i verified that Special:Version shows the same thing here and on frwiki - 1.37.0-wmf.21 (0878f27).

peace קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

It is not enabled here yet by default. It is accessible with some URL trickery. See #dtenable testing, still on this page. Izno (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thanks! the linked section is pretty long, and i have to confess i did not read it all.
IMO, this is the one really useful part of "new discussion tools", and it seems strange to enable everything else, and leave the one thing you really want disabled. at least i know now it's not me, and once this will be enabled on enwiki, i'll have it too. i suggest changing the (local) description of the beta feature (Mediawiki:discussiontools-preference-description), to reflect reality . peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Until it's available, you can add the following to your common.js:
if (NSnum%2==1||NSnum==4)
		'Section subscribe'
Then, when on a page in any talk or WP space, a "Section subscribe" option will appear in your toolbox. Click on it, and the page will reload with the [subscribe] and [unsubscribe] links enabled. I think I will use this method even when section subscriptions are officially enabled, so it's available when I want it, but it's not cluttering up the pages when I don't. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 19:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The feature was implemented later than the inline reply features, so my understanding is that it's still being tested and thus rolled out in phases. isaacl (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey all,
It should be possible to get this new feature added to the Beta Feature here. I'll ask the team if they can make it happen soon (hopefully next week, but it might take longer). I know Peter's been double-checking through the feedback from the #dtenable testing section; he's likely to post an update at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project, if anyone wants to watch that page. Until we hear back from them, you can enable Discussion Tools at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures, and then you can customize a few things at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion (e.g., turn off any bits you don't like).
Thanks, קיפודנחש, for asking about this. It's currently available everywhere except this Wikipedia and all of the sister projects. I hope that it will be available here soon. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Watchlist time period bug in edit mode?[edit]

My watchlist time period selection is not always retained in edit mode. When editing a page, if I put it on my watchlist for 1 week (using the dropdown below the edit summary), then click "Show preview", it remembers my selection of 1 week; but when I click "Show changes", the 1 week reverts to permanent. —Bruce1eetalk 09:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a bug, yes. I'd suggest enabling "Show previews without reloading the page" option from Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing as this gets rid of that anomaly. – SD0001 (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Enabling that preference removes the anomaly/bug. —Bruce1eetalk 16:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I filed phab:T291287 and submitted a patch, it should be a trivial fix. Legoktm (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Some scripts might break next Thursday[edit]

Hi all,

I don't fully understand this potential problem, but the part that I grasped is that there's going to be a change that might affect some user scripts/gadgets that depend on something in the CSS. This will probably appear here at the English Wikipedia next WP:THURSDAY (i.e., eight days from now).

This change was made months ago at three Wikipedias, and they're still around, so I assume that the overall risk is fairly low. On the other hand, there are more gadgets here and at Commons than anywhere else, so perhaps the risk is higher here. My main goal in posting this is to let you know that if a gadget breaks next Thursday, that you'll consider these CSS changes as a possible source of the problem.

Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything that should be an issue there. Izno (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I added some technical details to the linked task. These are the same changes that are currently applied when you enable the "Discussion tools" beta feature, so you can test today whether your scripts/gadgets work fine with that. We're not actually expecthing anything to break (but you never know…). Matma Rex talk 18:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-mobile URL?[edit]

What generates a URL like The hostname doesn't have ".m" in it, so it looks like desktop, but it has Special:MobileDiff, so it looks like mobile. There's many examples of this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Maglasang. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: they were put there by an editor who was using the mobile app, which produces those type of links to make it display that way better on mobile devices. The "Special:MobileDiff" part is what is forcing that view. — xaosflux Talk 18:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
interestingly, Special:MobileDiff is not listed in Special:SpecialPages. any good reason? should it be? peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@קיפודנחש: not all special pages loaded from extensions are on that page, for example Special:MobileOptions isn't either. You can ask more about that at mw:Extension talk:MobileFrontend though. — xaosflux Talk 18:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thanks. i did not know that. this sounds like a deficiency of the extension (and any other extension not listing its special pages). i can't imagine there's not being a easy hook for extensions to list their special pages. maybe mobile have some good reasons to hide theirs, but more likely, someone "forgot" to hook them. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Special pages are listed there by default, and have to be intentionally hidden (overriding isListed() to return false). In this case, I think it was hidden because it doesn't have a "landing page" – if you visit Special:MobileDiff, you only see an error message, instead of a nice form or something like you see on Special:Diff. Matma Rex talk 22:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Stopping on the redirect page[edit]

Is there a magic word or template that can be added to a category that would stop all redirect pages that are in the category from going to the target page when the link is launched from the category page? If not, would it be difficult to create such a template or magic word, and what would those of you who are technically proficient recommend? I ask because I often do gnomish work in the redirect categories (Rcats) and eliminating the extra step of going back to the redirect page would save me time, aggravation, and metered data. Thank you?--John Cline (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@John Cline: not that I'm aware of, perhaps a userscript could work though. For example if you were looking at Category:Redirects to scientific names of fish - and click on a link, if a script just appended ?redirect=no to every link you would always bypass the redirects. Is this something you think would be mostly for you (or those that jump through some hoops to opt-in) - or something that is needed for a large number of readers? — xaosflux Talk 09:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Possible example to use/build from: User:BrandonXLF/NoRedirect. — xaosflux Talk 09:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Xaosflux. I don't think the average reader would benefit necessarily, they are maintenance categories and shouldn't be on article pages (if they inadvertently were, they would be hidden as well). Now editors, especially those who support WikiProject Redirect, would likely appreciate and benefit from somesuch ability though I've no idea how large that group would be. Thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@John Cline: a userscript like BrandonXLF's may be the best answer for those working with lots of redirect maintenance - as it gives you the option to bypass any redirect, anywhere. It is opt-in, depending on your trust level of BrandonXLF, you could import his script using the directions on that page - or you could add the contents of this version that I have reviewed as safe to your Special:MyPage/vector.js (or whatever skin you use usually) to enable it. — xaosflux Talk 10:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Xaosflux for suggesting this script, and BrandonXLF for providing it. I have tested it and find that it works well and satisfies my needs nicely. My best to you both.--John Cline (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@John Cline: If you only want it on category pages then you can wrap the code in the below. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
if ( mw.config.get( 'wgNamespaceNumber' ) === 14 ) {
Thank you PrimeHunter. I'm going to save this code for possible future use. Currently, I am very happy with the script and enjoy it being active at all times. Thank you again, may you find the next Mersenne prime.--John Cline (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That's odd[edit]

I've never edited German WP, but it seems some of my en-WP edits are registered as Benutzerbeiträge there anyway. Anyone know why? They're not on the edit count page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: It looks like one or more pages you edited were imported (e.g. here), which brought over the edit history. Sam Walton (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
That probably makes sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Visual editor & MoS: upright vs px?[edit]

Help:Pictures and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images states that thumbnails should be left in default sizes and the preferred syntax for fine-tunning is |upright=factor. The visual editor gives users an option to override by px only. Why? -- Ochloese (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm working on a proposal on zh to bring their MoS inline with en. This inconsistency is quite puzzling. -- Ochloese (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
If you want to go down the rabbit hole on this one, see T64671, and discussions linked from there. The short version appears to be that upright was proposed for deprecation, but there is nothing to replace it. I could be summarizing incorrectly, though. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Another way of looking at it is that VE doesn't know about MoS. Many options exist in the full image syntax, but the MoS prefers that some forms shouldn't be used, and that's not VE's fault - to quote from WP:VE: VisualEditor still has many bugs and missing features. I expect that it intentionally doesn't know about MoS - VE was designed to be used on all wikis that use the MediaWiki software, and English Wikipedia (with its own quirky MoS that none of the other wikis use) is just one wiki in well over 1000. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Is viewing IP edit history on mobile removed now?[edit]

I’ve tried clicking the edit history of IPs including mine but they only show the invalid user error and I’m wondering if the IP edit history has been removed on mobile. 2600:1003:B8DE:FBCA:B8C1:C57:CEF0:F1EC (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  • It's a bug, standby for a tracking number; WP:ITSTHURSDAY. — xaosflux Talk 01:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • phab:T291233 opened on this bug. — xaosflux Talk 01:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    • For temporary workaround, use the desktop view at the bottom of the page first. — xaosflux Talk 01:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    • For those with access to the options panel, selecting "advanced mode" also is a work around. — xaosflux Talk 01:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • FYI: Bug has been confirmed, pending patch acceptance and deployment. — xaosflux Talk 13:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Search box[edit]

Hi. Has anyone else noticed that the search box on the left-hand side of all pages removes the "search" button when you click in the box, leaving you with just the "Go" button? I find this unhelpful when it comes to creating redirects. For example, if there was an article for the sportsman Lugsy Van Nuts, I would also create the redirect Lugsy van Nuts. But if I type the latter into the search box, it automatically goes to the former, without going to the search result page, so I can't easily create the redirect (and probably kill a few redlinks). Is there a quick fix/code to get back both buttons? Thanks! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: seems like a bug, are you getting this only in monobook? — xaosflux Talk 18:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's the one! I did notice it yesterday, but hoped it would be fixed. Thanks for the link to the Phabricator incident. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

how do i create log-link[edit]

unclutter provides link to log-link. i am trying to create inmy signature, but error: "Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags." unable to find any clue on Help:How to fix your signature also. as soon as i add code [[Special:Log&page=User:Ashtamatrikas|log]] the above error occurs. is this known isue or am i overlooking simple solution? –Ashtamatrikas (Brāhmī) (talkcontribactions) 18:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Please provide the whole signature that you would like to use, and we can help you troubleshoot it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
is this what you want?
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
this is my
  • existing good code: [[User:Ashtamatrikas|Ashtamatrikas (Brāhmī)]] ([[User talk:Ashtamatrikas|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ashtamatrikas|contrib]] • [[Special:Log/Ashtamatrikas|actions]]).
  • error code [[User:Ashtamatrikas|Ashtamatrikas (Brāhmī)]] ([[User talk:Ashtamatrikas|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ashtamatrikas|contrib]] • [[Special:Log/Ashtamatrikas|actions]] • [[Special:Log&page=User:Ashtamatrikas|log]]), it shows error: "Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags."
  • in browser, if i manually replace example with Ashtamatrikas shows my account creation date. –Ashtamatrikas (Brāhmī) (talkcontribactions) 02:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikilinks cannot have query strings (the part after ? in a url). If you just want to link your account creation (why?) then you can do it with [[Special:Log/newusers/Ashtamatrikas|log]] which produces log. This will not show other log actions on your user page (there aren't any now). I don't know a wikilink to do that. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: i was just trying to recreate signature pattern identical to unclutter signature. if it is not possible in wikilink, then its ok. –Ashtamatrikas (Brāhmī) (talkcontribactions) 04:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This is what Ashtamatrikas wants their signature to look like. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
That is the effect of User:Kephir/gadgets/unclutter - it uses JavaScript to add extra links to normal signatures. It operates when the page is loaded by the browser, and acts upon most signatures on the page - it isn't specific to the sig of one individual user. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia desperately slow then down[edit]

Had a few minutes of desperate slowness, and then a white screen with "upstream connect error or disconnect/reset before headers. reset reason: overflow". DuncanHill (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Crippling slowdown[edit]

The whole site is generally down, or nearly so/ I keep getting error message "upstream connect error or disconnect/reset before headers. reset reason: overflow". The is it down? type websites agree; Wikipedia is down. Let's see if I can post this.... 2600:1702:2670:B530:45D:3246:2D5F:FEC0 (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Me Too[edit]

Same as above, and is pretty slow as I type this. It's only Wikmedia sites, as far as I can tell. Wikisource, Commons, etc. are also doing it, but no non-Wikimedia site. — Maile (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)