text:
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 159

Save changes buttons - accessibility
At some point between 23:23 and 23:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC), the edit interface has changed. Is it Thursday already? I notice that the buttons at the bottom (Save changes, etc.) have changed, are bigger and less readable: there's a contrast problem. Accessibility is something to be careful of. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely sure what was wrong with the old version either, and it is certainly not yet Thursday. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * They've been dutifully warning us of the buttons' fuglification for weeks, including that there's no practical way to repair them with user css. I'd have complained earlier, but of course it would've done no good. —Cryptic 00:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Redrose, accessibility for people with low vision is one of the main points. The contrast has been dutifully checked (several times by now, at least for Vector) and easily clears all of the standards.
 * Note that this is more than an aesthetic change, so a few old editing scripts may also break. See mw:Contributors/Projects/Accessible editing buttons for information on how to fix anything that's broken.
 * (P.S. It's a config change, which means it can descend on you on any day of the week.     So far, it's only reached the Wikipedias and Meta.  Other wikis will happen in a couple of weeks.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * They look perfectly fine to me. I don't see where any potential readability issues would come from even for those with eyesight issues. They're compliant. Amaury ( talk | contribs ) 01:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , could you please explain how making various interface elements exceedingly disproportional (like buttons being about 4 times bigger than hyperlinks) improves accessibility? If you care so much about these people (by the way, what is their fraction among the editors?), then maybe it would be better to make a special "accessible" style for them, with everything large and contrast? I can tell about my own experience with "accessibility": when I need to use a website with small fonts, I just press +, and my browser magnifies everything proportionally. If I would do that with the current WP design, these ugly buttons will take half of the screen, actually decreasing the usability. And I also wonder very much: how artificially limiting the summary line to 80% of the width is supposed to help people with low vision? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The intention, at least as stated in prior posts here, was to improve accessibility for readers using the desktop version on mobile devices. Never mind that this affects editors, not readers, and significantly degrades the desktop version on the desktop. —Cryptic 16:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not just mobile devices. Touch devices. This includes things like Windows Surface laptops for instance. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought that all modern OSs have user preferences for sizes and colors, such that any interface built from standard elements will have a comfortable look and feel. Am I wrong? I do not have much experience with touch devices (believing that text editing on a keyboardless device is a bad idea), but how can it be that these users can tap hyperlinks, but cannot tap standard buttons (which are usually about twice bigger)? And again, how reducing the summary width to 80% helps them? Especially considering the problems (discussed below) with its wrong alignment and an overlapping counter. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Web pages cannot access OS user preferences (it would be a leak of privacy if they could), nor directly use the user interface elements provided by the OS (they use the user interface elements provided by the web browser, which may or may not resemble those natively provided by the OS). isaacl (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Web pages do not need to access OS user preferences because the browser itself should. In any case, browsers have user preferences for default colors, fonts, and overall magnification. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, the browser could retrieve and expose this data to web servers, but I don't believe there's currently a mechanism for web servers to retrieve this info from web browsers, and it would still be a potential privacy issue. There are defaults for colours and fonts, but not size information for user interface elements. Most users, though, appreciate greater variety in the web sites they visit, and would not want all of them to use only the default background and text colour. Even just considering the implications on a single site, visual elements such as side bars would blend into the main text flow without a distinguishing background colour. isaacl (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Browser do not need to expose these preferences to web servers, they use them locally for rendering pages. If you have no idea how it works, please see, , ,.
 * A variety in the web sites is fine, but kind of interferes with the accessibility, which was the declared reason for the changes we discuss here. And I still assert that neglecting user's setting actually does not "improve accessibility". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I am familiar with how the default settings work. I was only responding to your original post regarding using the OS user preferences. Sure, it's possible to go back to the late 1990s look, with the web site using only defaults, and a single flow of content such as seen on many sites that are designed with mobile devices in mind as the primary viewing experience. But it's unlikely for any highly popular site such as Wikipedia to drop all styling, and in particular judicious use of background and foreground colours. For better or worse, most readers today expect both accessibility features to be respected and an engaging site design. Specifically regarding buttons: the key problem is that browsers don't offer good customization options to tailor their accessibility, and there is uneven support in adjusting their appearance via CSS. Accordingly sites will substitute their own button elements for the default ones. It's not a perfect solution, but it's what we have available. isaacl (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Mikhail, the use of 80% width on the edit summary box has nothing to do with this change. It's been like that for years (possibly since the creation of the MonoBook skin).  However, the team can change it, and if people don't like the result, then they can complain.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, they have tried their best to impede user's CSS. I have added to my common.js some code to remove the offending classes:
 * This seems to help against the most evil stuff, at least so far... — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What a relief! The awful new buttons couldn't be styled by CSS (by me at any rate), but this returns them to a usable legible state. And fixes my widgets too. Lithopsian (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I regret that I have but one thanks button to click for this edit. A css solution would be better - removing the classes in javascript still shows the irritatingly immense buttons briefly until the page finishes loading - but this is still a huge improvement. —Cryptic 16:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since they are classes, you can redefine them using user CSS. For example, I have changed the color. If you want to have boring grey buttons again, you can use
 * for example. Regards  So Why  12:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a CSS style that is just "look like a button, like all the other buttons - eg 'Go' and 'Search' in Monobook"? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I just took a screenshot at File:Save_dialog_Wiki.jpg (FF 52.0.2, Windows desktop, Vector skin). Maybe that helps a bit to find remaining problems and script incompatibilites (obviously the buttons need fixing, and the "edit summary" field is cut by 1-2 pixels on the left side). GermanJoe (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * wikEd is making it's own style modifications. It will need an update. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 07:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think they're awful – unattractive and huge, but I am more concerned with the fact that I no longer have any ability to leave an edit summary. Gone. The field is not even presented to me. I do/did have my interface tweaked to get rid of the gallons of material at the bottom of the page, and order it better. I'm assuming that is the issue. Can anyone advise if there's any way to tweak my customization or can identify the issue between my common.js and my my common.css?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh, yeah you are doing some very uncommon manipulations there with both JS and CSS on your editOptions. If you want to hide something, you should always target as narrow as possible, not go high level and then selectively move things out of it with JS... —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 15:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Any chance we have a preference like with VE ?, My main dislike is the huge blue button as well as the rather big tick (image) - Wouldn't be so bad if it was smaller, ofcourse I realise it's been designed for people with eyesight issues however without being disrespectful we're not all blind so surely there should've been common ground in terms of the design ?,
 * It pleases those with eyesight issues (which is absolutely great) but it pisses those off that don't have eyesight issues (FWIW I am short sighted and do wear glasses however the previous design was never an issue),
 * If we could have a preference option like with VE that'd be great - I know we can't please everyone I understand that but atleast to me the big blue button/tick is rather extreme... – Davey 2010 Talk 16:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Davey, I know it seems like a pretty big visual change, but my bet is that if you wait a couple of weeks, you won't notice it as much any longer. Most people adapt to visual changes pretty quickly.  Also, since most of us here are experienced editors, most of us don't really look at the buttons much anyway:  It's just  to the edit summary box, type the edit summary, and  to save the page.  The buttons don't even need to be above the scroll.
 * We made this change at half a dozen big wikis two weeks ago. There were a few comments about the size and color there on the first couple of days, but I've seen nothing about it since then.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah see I don't do that - I usually hit any part of the scrollbar thus making it "ping" to any place - I then type whatever or use the arrow keys for autofil and then hit return,
 * Ofcourse I mean changes happen everywhere and not all are liked but we live with it but usually if something changes to my dislike I'll "dislike it but live with it" but here and I hate to be a little drama-queen but I actually hate it, The button is "too in your face" if that makes sense, I love the colour Blue always have so I love the colour choice here no problem but the button and tick are too big,
 * It would've been better to have it the same size as the previous and perhaps have implemented a tool where it could be made bigger in preferences or something, But I suppose it all goes back to "you can't please everyone",
 * Ah well it's changed and I guess there's nothing I can do except look in anger!, – Davey 2010 Talk 20:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this why the button is green?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah well it's changed and I guess there's nothing I can do except look in anger!, – Davey 2010 Talk 20:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this why the button is green?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Show changes clicks Editing help on Android
On Google Android phone (Google Chrome) browser, the new oversize "Show changes" (button 3) clicks into "Editing help" (cheatsheet link) which is very bizarre because no "Cheat" buttons onscreen, and "Show changes" really should show changes on mobile phone edits (which are hard enough already). This glitch shows the horrors of user-hinterface experiments which can hinder simple processing, as the inverse consequence of wanting a modest improvement in user interfaces. "Kids don't do this: never move the brake pedal, gas petal or steering wheel while a car is being driven". We need an essay, "wp:Computer Screwups 101" to remind people to use alpha/beta testing steps on crucial user-interfaces, where experimental glitches can have horrific impacts (over 20,000 mobile phone edits per month). -Wikid77 (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This report misses critical information. which page, which editor, which skin, which android device, which version of google chrome, did you test with disabling all your gadgets and userscripts ? How to report bugs effectively —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 07:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It happens on any page (wikitext editor) in Vector skin (Monobook skin ok) while suppressing License blurb, but when logged out then "Show changes" clicks Show preview, on Android phone LG Escape2, version 5.1.1. To avoid preview horrors, the Monobook skin can be used (which shows avocado " Save_changes " rather than Vector blue Save changes ). -Wikid77 (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

New Edit summary window
The redesigned Edit summary window has the text left-anchored, with the result that most of the time you can't see what you're typing because it's off the right-hand end of the window (on an ordinary 13" laptop). Can that really be what the designers wanted to achieve? The remaining-character count is good, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is supposed to right align. If it is not for you, then that might be a browser specific bug. Please report what browser and version of it you are using. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Safari Version 5.1.10, . Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, that browser is not really supported anymore, so I guess it's not too surprising. I've been saying that we should disable JS support for Safari 5, but so far it seems it's still included. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 09:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Similar but not identical problem in Chrome Version 49.0.2623.112; Firefox 48.0.2 is OK, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I use Chrome 36 (after I abandoned Firefox because v. 51 got waaay too slow - five minutes to load a Wikipedia diff, and ten mins to click "back" from that? Ridiculous) and I find that it's right aligned, but the last two or three characters are hidden by the bytes-remaining counter. Pressing reveals them though. Perhaps that counter could be put outside the box? -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Counter, what counter? Using the latest version of Chrome with Vector. Doug Weller  talk 10:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you using wikEd? That makes its own edit summary box with no counter. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect this might be interfering. And indeed so will wikEd. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I got rid of the CSS but I want to keep WikiED, I'm ok without the counter, just nice to know why I can't see it. Doug Weller  talk 15:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to fix wikEd though, you will need to contact it's maintainer. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course not, why should you? As I said, I'm not bothered, I want to keep WikiED. Doug Weller  talk 19:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * By "that counter", I mean the one described at Help:Edit summary (the bit about the figure 143). -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have the same problem on Firefox 52.2.1. Deli nk (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have the same problem with latest version of Chrome for Windows. When I undo a change, I find myself removing most of the default stuff in the box so I can see what I'm doing. Annoying. Any way to go back until they fix it?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Please roll back the change to the edit window. This makes it harder to write edit notes.    It is cute to have the little twitter character counter but it actually gets in the way many, many characters from the end.   This must go'. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary field hidden

 * Not sure if this is related, but I came here wondering about why I was not able to see any edit summary field at all. I'm editing on a Kindle fire at the moment with the vector skin. older ≠ wiser 08:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You have #wpSummaryLabel hidden in your vector.css (as did I). Just remove the line. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that seems like an oversight in one of the IDs.. Please file a bugreport. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The id  ended before the box in an old version I compared to. You can currently place the below in  to hide the heading but not the box. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 * 1) wpSummaryLabel .oo-ui-labelElement-label {display:none;}
 * You can increase the specificity of the selector, . -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Both your suggestions work, though I noticed PrimeHunter's suggestion also hides the count of remaining characters (something I had not seen before and is nice touch). older ≠ wiser 10:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

What is this number?
When I'm in the edit window in Firefox 54.0.1, logged in, there is an odd 3-digit number outside and to the right of the Edit Summary box. That same number appears no matter what article I open up. So, I opened Microsoft Edge without logging in. That same number appears no matter what article, except it's inside the Edit Summary. Are you tracking us? What is this number, and why is it the same number no matter what article, no matter if I'm logged in or not? — Maile (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Type some letters into the edit summary box and you will see what it means! See also the first point at Help:Edit summary. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahhhhh ... it counts the characters in our edit summary and tells us when we've reached the limit. Thanks. — Maile  (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Specifically, it counts bytes rather than characters; if you type in non-Latin characters like "카나다", "Канада", or "קאנאדע" you'll see it drop more quickly. My colleagues in the MediaWiki team are working on making it possible to write more than the current limit of 250 bytes, which was a highly-rated Community Tech wishlist item recently. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty pointless TBH. Another good reason why I ditched using edit summaries years ago.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it counts the bytes, not the characters. This distinction is what makes it particularly useful for people who aren't typing in English.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A better link is Help:Edit summary, in particular the bit about the figure 143. 255 bytes, not 250. Same link. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The counter is cool but should be outside the text field. The rest of the changes are just ugly. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   23:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Last characters in summary are hidden

 * I came here to ask a related question, and saw this thread. How do I turn off the count box? I couldn't find anything in preferences. Is there a .css or setting that will kill it? On Google Chrome (with MonoBook skin), the box hides the last couple characters typed in the Edit Summary box - as a result, it just gets in the way. To verify I didn't leave off anything I need to back arrow then forward arrow to trick the UI to show me all the typed characters. If I type again at that point, they are again hiddent and I need to use the stupid back arrow/forward arrow thing again to view all my typed characters. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Put  in your common.css. —Cryptic 17:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't work—the countdown is still there. I'm sure this was implemented with the best of intentions but please, disable it until you can get it working properly—not being able to see what you're typing is remarkably irritating. We survived for 15 years without it, I'm sure we can survive another week while you work the bugs out. ‑ Iridescent 17:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right - I was able to change the positioning and opacity with that selector, but display doesn't stick. I've added an "!important" to the above, which does work.  (At least for me, in cologneblue, in preview.)  Try that? —Cryptic 17:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if CSS allowed to hide it, note that this will not prevent the extra scripts from loading and running (every typed character will still be processed by them). — Paleo  Neonate  - 17:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Works here. It is an element and so it can be easily hidden. The selector is correct, make sure you copied it exactly and placed it in the correct file. Not to say it won't change tomorrow though. Also the count doesn't hide anything for me, so might be a browser-specific issue. Or just that skin? Either way, might work one day! Lithopsian (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake, I was using a different selector:  Lithopsian (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since "that browser" is Chrome and "that skin" is Vector, this is the most frequently occurring combination among Wikipedia editors by an order of magnitude—we're talking a major issue, not some obscure glitch that only affects a few users using archaic systems. ‑ Iridescent 17:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I figured out why this is occurring. Let's hope someone can find a fix for it soon. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I also experience a strange bug where sometimes characters become hidden under the counter when typing using FF, after typing enough it resets and I can see the new characters again. I would really like if most of those new features systematically came with corresponding disable/enable preferences (large buttons, interwiki search, this counter are examples of recent features which lacked systematic toggling options.  There's now a gadget to disable the search aspect (and it could be hidden by CSS), but that was still introduced afterward and does not prevent unnecessarily loading extra scripts (and all the interdomain pages, as can be seen in inspectors or security control addons);  I also noticed that page loading time increased in the last months, scripts often lagging behind the actual page.  I commonly click on the watchlist star before all scripts are loaded, causing the page to reload with the "add/remove" question like if JS was disabled.  Another common occurence is for the page to load and jump at the proper anchor with scripts lagging, which when loaded cause sudden scrolling/jump, where I have to select the address bar and press enter again to scroll to the anchor.  It's unfortunate for this bloat to become obvious for features I don't need, even on a fast system and fast connection...  — Paleo  Neonate  - 22:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I also experience a strange bug where sometimes characters become hidden under the counter when typing using FF, after typing enough it resets and I can see the new characters again. I would really like if most of those new features systematically came with corresponding disable/enable preferences (large buttons, interwiki search, this counter are examples of recent features which lacked systematic toggling options.  There's now a gadget to disable the search aspect (and it could be hidden by CSS), but that was still introduced afterward and does not prevent unnecessarily loading extra scripts (and all the interdomain pages, as can be seen in inspectors or security control addons);  I also noticed that page loading time increased in the last months, scripts often lagging behind the actual page.  I commonly click on the watchlist star before all scripts are loaded, causing the page to reload with the "add/remove" question like if JS was disabled.  Another common occurence is for the page to load and jump at the proper anchor with scripts lagging, which when loaded cause sudden scrolling/jump, where I have to select the address bar and press enter again to scroll to the anchor.  It's unfortunate for this bloat to become obvious for features I don't need, even on a fast system and fast connection...  — Paleo  Neonate  - 22:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes please turn this "counter" off. It is a bug, not a feature. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Character counts on subject/edit summaries?
I'm seeing character counts on the Subject and Edit summary boxes now, which I wasn't before a few days ago. However, for long edits (such as after a revert) the cursor and last few characters are hidden.

Is this on for everyone, or is my Javascript (currently only OneClickArchiver) somehow causing this? Power~enwiki (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * see above, sounds like the same. Nthep (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * yup, same thing. Closing. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Process
What is the process through which this "Improvement" was implemented? Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * God only knows. At the very least, there should have been a banner warning users of it. When I first saw it yesterday, I wondered for a moment if I'd somehow wound up on a spoofed site. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   23:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously someone at WMF who never uses this site thought it would be a great thing to implement. Hats off to them!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It was pointed out to me here that this was done via phab:T36984. That in turn was related to phab:T165856. It ~appears~ to me that User:Jdforrester (WMF) was the person who implemented the request?  I don't understand how the process of changing code works or how decisions are made to actually implement things.  I suppose somebody thought this was a trivial tweak. I have no idea.
 * There is a Tech news thing where the devs communicate what they are doing, but I looked through the current issue and one previous issue and don't see this mentioned. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously someone at WMF who never uses this site is wrong per Jytdog's phabricator link (which I dug up). The original feature had implementations on other wikis in gadget form (especially the non-Latin alphabetic wikis) and has anyway existed in VisualEditor for (without seeming complaint  on phabricator, besides a handful of breakages). --Izno (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Izno - I have appreciated your providing information but the implementation in the WikiEditor was crappy and broke things. Period. Whether it worked somewhere else is entirely irrelevant. People get angry when their tools get broken - irrelevant argument pours oil on the fire. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. So I guess we all need to start using VisualEditor so that we'll be forewarned about interface "improvements". It never ceases to amaze me: there are so many areas of the editing experience that could be improved, and WMF developers have repeatedly shown themselves capable of coming up with brilliant solutions, but they keep fixing things that aren't broken. And failing to give fair warning. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   13:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is rather amusing to see that almost everything now on my common.js and common.css pages exists solely to reverse various changes WMF developers made. And I certainly cannot thank enough everyone who has contributed here with wonderful solutions, with a special shout-out going to Mikhail Ryazanov and Cryptic! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not having an indicator of how much information I could pack into an edit summary was more-or-less broken behavior and I'm personally surprised this change wasn't made earlier. "No-one got around to it because it would have been a pain before the train got rolling on the big blue Publish button" seems to be the indication from the phabricator task for the "why" of that. --Izno (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I indicated elsewhere in this ever-growing section, the counter isn't a bad thing; the implementation of it is. The implementation is half-baked and was rolled out without proper notification. (It certainly wasn't urgently needed; one becomes rather adept over the years at estimating summary length and trimming as needed.) Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   18:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, generally. --Izno (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Having feelings about an (un)expected change is understandable. Communicating that in a non-collegial manner (that is, dripping sarcasm and obvious lack of research) is not. I am perturbed that you did not state an issue with his behavior but instead targeted my response, but sure, I'll move along. --Izno (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Izno this was not feelings about an unexpected change - it is frustration with a change that broke something I rely on for every edit I make, that adds a "feature" that provides no value for me.  Your initial responses were helpful and provided information.   These last responses have not been helpful but are causing "feelings" that are decidedly not good.  Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Make it stop
Please kill this counter. It is turning my edit notes into garble. This is so unbelievably stupid. TURN THE COUNTER OFF.Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This issue is being worked on. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 09:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The counter should be removed and made an option for people who want to see how much space they have left. I do not want this clutter.  Removing it should be simple and fast, no?   Whatever it takes to fix it can be worked out at leisure then, and It can be re-implemented as an option.  Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The counter gets in the way of editing on a mobile / tablet and makes it impossible to leave a meaningful edit summary when reverting an edit using the web interface on an iPhone. For example:  Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  09:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

 * It stopped!! Thank you devs, very much. Such a relief not to have to fight with the software to leave an edit note.  We take simple things that work for granted, so I wanted to be sure to say thanks.  I would prefer not to have the counter re-implemented but if it must be, please keep it out of the way.  Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Jytdog. Recently, the number counter has been reinserted per Phabricator task, which was about fixing the bug itself... maybe? I think filing a Phabricator task to disable the feature is not a good start as it needs consensus. Some of the tasks that I started got rejected (for various reasons, I think). I sense some disdain toward the counter, but I don't think the Technical subpage is the right place as this is a mere complaint rather than an error report. I wonder whether you or I can propose adding the user option to opt-out/opt-in the number counter in the editing page at the WP:Village pump (proposals). You can see how my advice led to a proposal discussion. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah i saw it when they reinstated it. it stays out of the way now so i no longer HATE it. now it is just a distraction that i would just as soon not have but cannot get exercised over... Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Cancel button no longer a button
Why is the Cancel button no longer a button, just a bolded red text link?

What on earth is that about? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The link has changed colour and size, but it wasn't a button before: 2014 screenshot -- John of Reading (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The word "Citations", also without button, is floating just above the line between "Show changes" and "Cancel". (Monobook, desktop, current Firefox) Noyster (talk),  12:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds like you have a user script or gadget that needs updating. Anomie⚔ 12:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The color change was not a good idea, because now it looks like a redlink, instead of just an editing page option. kennethaw88 • talk 00:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well... to experienced Wikipedians perhaps.. to the rest of the world, probably not as much. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

 * It may not have been a button before but it looked okay then. It doesn't now. It looks wrong. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In Vector it is a bit more readable - do we have an wiki-side options for increasing the font weight in monobook? — xaosflux  Talk 11:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added bolding to the cancel button in MediaWiki:Monobook.css. — xaosflux  Talk 01:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I agree entirely. The new implementation is visually, and cognitively jarring. "Cancel" is an option at least as important as "Save" or "Preview". For workflow option choices such as this my brain would expect to be choosing between a set of equally prominent buttons, or a set of equally prominent links, not an odd, indiscriminate mixture. If it was "wrong" before then it never really caught my attention as such, so, for me at least, it must now be more jarringly "wrong" - probably due, in part, to the increased prominence of the buttons. I use vector. -- Begoon 11:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Shortened edit summary
Nobody else seems to have mentioned it, so I will: Since the implementation of the accessible save buttons, the length of the edit summary seems to have been cut in half. I usually edit on a Windows 7 machine using 64-bit Firefox 54.0.1, using WikEd and these scripts; here is my CSS. Any suggestions? If I undo an edit, the automatically generated portion of the edit summary (the diff number and the links to the editor's contribs and talk page) take up more than half the length of the (shortened) edit summary. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that, but I think it's unchanged. There is a bug in that when scripting is disabled in the browser, there is no visible cursor in the edit summary box once the cursor hits the end of the box (129 characters in my browser window at the moment—that depends on how wide the window is). I can continue typing (with no visible cursor) until 200 bytes have been entered. I think that is the same as it used to be, although 255 bytes are available when scripting is enabled. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The 200-byte limit was lifted for everybody with the release of MediaWiki 1.17 back in February 2011; making this gadget somewhat redundant (it's at ). -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but I tested before posting my comment above, and 200 bytes is all I can put in an edit summary box with scripting off, and 255 with it on. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is just wikEd racing the oojs ui. If wikEd is first, it gets 200 limit (because that is the fallback if OOjs UI has not finished enhancing the view). —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your comments and assistance. I tend to agree that it's probably a conflict with WikEd, because it doesn't happen on every edit. Just the ones for which I need a long edit summary. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No preview of edit summary with live preview
I'd like to also express my disapproval of the new bigger "Save changes" etc buttons. More importantly though, I no longer get a the preview of edit summary that I used to get when I clicked "Show preview" or "Show changes". I use the MonoBook skin, but the same problem occurs when I switch to Vector. The preview of the edit summary itself is quite useful because I frequently include wiki-links in my edit summaries - most often to the relevant MOS guideline shortcut (eg MOS:BOLD) when editing pages to meet those guidelines. The summary preview showed me a clickable link (red if I've mistyped it) which I can ctrl-click (open in new tab/page) to check. Can we have the summary preview put back please. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When I try it, in both Monobook and Vector, the preview shows up just under the edit summary input. I don't think it has even moved due to this change. Anomie⚔ 12:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If I try in in a "private browsing" window, so I'm effectively not logged in, the preview appears, so perhaps there's something in the new style that conflicts with one or more of the settings in my preferences. I could reset them all to defaults and work through them all, but that will be tedious. Does anyone have any suggestions as to specific settings to try? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , if you are using the Live Preview option of your preferences, then there is currently a bug where the preview of the summary doesn't work. This is ticket T171156. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that's the cause in my case. I do have live preview enabled, and if I disable it the summary preview reappears. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 * By the way, does anybody know how to get "Templates used in this preview" working with "live preview"? Now it shows "Wikidata entities...", "...member of categories" and a rather useless "Parser profiling data", but not the templates, so getting to template documentation is a nontrivial task. (In :ru, "live preview" is invoked by a different button, so a "regular" preview can still be easily done as a work-around. But why can't it just work properly?). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Show Preview and Show Changes on a single button
Since everyone's focused on this general topic, can I renew my plea for a single button that will give "Preview" and "Changes" at the same time? It's such a perfectly obviously useful thing, and there should be zero design issues. I'll just sit here and hold my breath until that's done. Thanks.  E Eng  13:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the status of your experimental script for this? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'd kill for this feature.  E Eng  12:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Note: Not actual threat to kill anyone.
 * You didn't say that you'd kill a person. How about killing off your choice of maintenance categories instead?  ;-)  Weeding the stale templates out of Category:Pages actively undergoing a major edit looks a fair trade, if the script is still viable.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Completely fair. I'll do it in dribs and drabs today over the next few days (visitors) .  E Eng  13:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A month of visitors, it turns out. I sure hope you're ready to make good on your side of the bargain. I'm counting on you.  E Eng  17:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * August can be like that. Please give it a try before you get any further; it may do more than what you want, or it may have broken in the last four months (since the last edits).  The installation instructions are at User:TheDJ/Actual Live Preview.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

With continued apologies for not having upheld my end of the bargain (yet), that's not at all what I'm looking for. Normally, when editing, below the edit window there are four buttons: Save changes; Show preview; Show changes; Cancel. I want an additional button (or maybe it replaces Show preview and Show changes) called Show changes and preview, which gives you the diff (like Show changes gives you) at the top, a preview (like Show preview gives) in the middle, and then the edit window at the bottom. This way, I can review how my unsaved version diffs from the current live version of the page and I can preview the rendering of my unsaved version, at the same time. This seems so perfectly obviously desirable that I'm astounded it's not just the way it was designed in the first place, instead of (as we have now) two separate buttons forcing you to choose which of two ways (diff vs. rendered) to review before saving.  E Eng  13:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If anyone's still curious, I've retooled my four-year old script that does just this. Should be working again. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This works wonders, thanks! I would second 's request to display changes at the top of page, then preview, and finally edit window. The reason is that diffs are generally small whereas article or section preview can be several screenfuls; with diffs on top, they are easier to quickly review for typos and such. — JFG talk 06:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @JFG: done! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Splendid! — JFG talk 15:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 *  THIS IS THE GREATEST THING IN THE WORLD! EVERYONE INSTALL IT!
 *  E Eng  22:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 *  E Eng  22:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Citation expander
The Citation expander gadget adds as "Citations" link that hasn't been beefed up for the new button scheme. Would somebody more familiar with whats going on with the buttons right now be willing to file a phab report about that? Jason Quinn (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume that you don't actually want a Phab task about MediaWiki:Gadget-citations.js. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I came here to report something about this, too. The "Citations" button is no longer a button, but just the word "Citations", in a very small font, in a superscript position for some reason, and it doesn't even look like a link, much less a button (conditions: Mac OS 10.12, Chrome 59).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what a Phab task is, but it looks like the link has now been buttonified? Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  09:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete page
The button looks like a redlink. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Replacing a template with another one when rendering a page using user JS?
Hi there. Okay, basically, what I want to do is to replace the Find sources AFD template with a customized template (like User:SoWhy/find more sources) on AFDs I view without touching the AFD's template itself (so I can add resources available to me for a quick check). Is this actually possible or does Javascript only allow manipulation of the HTML generated (which is a bit tricky afaict since the template has no id to get)? If the latter is true, is there a way to get the whole code block and replace it? I have a function in PHP that allows selection between two strings but I have no JS skills whatsoever, so my next question would probably be if someone could create such a script for me Regards  So  Why  07:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you can get the raw wikitext with a call to the API (I don't know if you can display another template's wikitext), but it might be easier for you simply to change the DOM. It doesn't look like the find sources template emits any sort of class to identify its use, which would be the first improvement; once that is changed, you can probably replace the generated HTML pretty trivially by selecting on the element class and then adding some generated HTML of interest. --Izno (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Assistance requested to fix a few hundred dead links
CEEOL have identified that the majority of their approximately 450 links on Wikipedia are now dead links because of a website restructure. They're in the process of compiling a list of replacement links to send to me, but I need some community assistance in replacing all these links with their new URL. If you have the expertise/desire to fix these links in a (semi-) automated way please let me know! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Can InternetArchiveBot take care of that? I don't know if it runs automatically, but it's operated by and . — Maile  (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, though IABot does a lot more than simple replace one link with another. I have a list of pages, the old link, and the new link, it just needs something to run through the list and simply replace the text. It might want to be semi-automated so that any dead link templates can be removed too though. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For simple text replacement, WP:AWB is your friend.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Make a WP:Bot request; a number of AWB users watch there for AWB-able cases (which this is one). --Izno (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Izno, will do once I've got the full data! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Large revdel error?
Hi all, I was trying to revdel (for copyright reasons) a mass of edits at, from 16:21, September 16, 2016 (UTC) to 16:09, September 8, 2017 (UTC). This took a few minutes of clicking. When I clicked the Change visibility of selected items button, Chrome returned "This site can’t be reached - en.wikipedia.org unexpectedly closed the connection. ERR_CONNECTION_CLOSED". Any thoughts on this? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a temporary failure - try again. Try a single revision first, to make sure there isn't something else going on as well. —  xaosflux  Talk 16:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have had a problem when trying to do large chunks of articles. If I break it into smaller around 200 edits, it works. ~ GB fan 16:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thumbnail not displaying
On British baseball, File:Wales Vs England Baseball International ball.jpg won't display. Any ideas? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was https://upload.wikimedia.org/ being slow again. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * https://screenshots.firefox.com/McTzPHHZq9c8m2gb/en.wikipedia.org ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant to comment on this -- at the time Koavf reported this, I saw the image on British baseball, but when I clicked on it to show it in MediaViewer or view the file page, it wasn't there. I do see it now, though. Anyway, is apparently having a similar issue with File:WikiFilterLogo.png, see their post on my talk page. Someone else reported the same issue to me almost 2 years ago, so I don't think this is a new bug, or maybe it's a regression. Trying to search Phabricator but haven't found anything yet... —  MusikAnimal  talk  22:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems your topicon has updated, and I'm able to view the updated file now when I click on the image on my user page. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it displays just fine now. Thanks all. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

API:Imageinfo returns null for &iiprop=comment
Lately, I have been getting back null for the  value when making this  Imageinfo API query on File:Example.jpg. I'm expecting to see " ". Could someone help confirm if this is a MediaWiki bug, or if I am doing something wrong? Thanks,  F ASTILY   23:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That should work...I can replicate the lack of a comment every image I give it. I'm not finding anything in Phabricator about it either, you may well have stumbled onto something here. FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY  [u+1F602]  02:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi 😂. Thanks for the input; I just opened T175443.  Regards,   F ASTILY   06:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict options spoiling my edit
I just met an edit conflict. I now have to manage two columns, seven colors, twelve options, and still cannot get it. Right now, a straight F*K YOU is appropriate. -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you going on about? Edit conflict management is a lot better now. On the right is the current version of the page. On the left in yellow are your changes. I haven't had an edit conflict in a while, but I believe the changes made by the editor who caused the conflict will be highlighted blue. Amaury ( talk | contribs ) 00:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I said: it is NOT better. I see lots of colors, dozens of options, and loads of textual 'helps'. Two columns, five text squares. Fussed texts. Texts talking about "your text" — which is invisible. -DePiep (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not even a process (wizard, step-through). -DePiep (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, isn't the new edit-conflict interface opt-in-only, under beta features? I agree that the old one was plain awful, and I generally had to resort to going back in my browser to retrieve my edit manually. —Cryptic 02:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's normally opt-in (at ); but if has "Automatically enable all new beta features" set at the top of that page, it becomes opt-out - but they can't turn off individual beta features without turning off "Automatically enable all new beta features" as well. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

{{Archive box collapsible}} seems to be broken when using Google Chrome

 * Transcluding issue here for help, please.
 * UPDATE: I just looked at {{Collapse}} and have the same issue. What should be expandable sections don't display the [show] button. So it's apparently something to do with the way Chrome handles that function. Thanks for any help that can be offered!— D'Ranged 1 |  VTalk  :  10:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me in Google Chrome 61.0.3163.79 on Windows 10. Try updating Chrome and restarting the computer. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the time, it means one of your userscripts/gadgets/browser extensions broke. I didn't fully look into your scripts, but at least this from User:D%27Ranged_1/vector.js was causing you fatal errors on every page load. Please regularly evaluate what you use, and if it creates errors in your browser's console. See also: Help:Locating broken scripts. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: XTools ArticleInfo gadget
Hello! The XTools team is happy to announce the revival of the popular XTools gadget. Before this was offered as a user script (meta:User:Hedonil/XTools), but now we'd like to propose it as a proper gadget here on the English Wikipedia, meaning you could turn it on in your gadget preferences. The gadget will work with all skins. Here's a screenshot:

Documentation can be found at XTools. If you'd like to try it out now, add the following to your common.js (or global.js to install for all wikis):

Thank you for your consideration! — MusikAnimal  talk  19:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems useful, works, no objections from my part. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 21:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with TheDJ. Can't hurt to have as a gadget. Regards  So Why  07:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'm hoping this is OK based on this limited but positive feedback :) — MusikAnimal  talk  01:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you change the HTTP links to HTTPS links? Jc86035 (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All the links are using HTTPS for me, except the links to XTools itself. I'm not sure why our framework isn't returning HTTPS when we're querying the service over HTTPS, but either way T170989 will redirect any non-secure requests to HTTPS. We'll hopefully have that done before too long — MusikAnimal  talk  18:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Template vandalism somewhere
Hey detectives, I know that there's some template vandalism somewhere, but I'm having trouble tracking it down. I was searching for spam links to songsportalhd.tk. There are three articles that contain the links, The links appear numerous times in various sidebar templates, however I don't see the links in any of those template, so I surmise they're being transcluded from somewhere else. Your help is appreciated. And if you figure it out, I'd appreciate a quick note on how you solved it. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * List of castra in Romania
 * History of Kenya
 * Serbian traditional clothing
 * I think I figured it out. A page purge seems to have cleared them. The offending party edited Template:Linkexist... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

API:Imageinfo returns null for &iiprop=comment
Lately, I have been getting back null for the  value when making this  Imageinfo API query on File:Example.jpg. I'm expecting to see " ". Could someone help confirm if this is a MediaWiki bug, or if I am doing something wrong? Thanks,  F ASTILY   23:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That should work...I can replicate the lack of a comment every image I give it. I'm not finding anything in Phabricator about it either, you may well have stumbled onto something here. FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY  <sup style="color:#c22">[u+1F602]  <em style="font-size:10px;">02:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi 😂. Thanks for the input; I just opened T175443.  Regards,   F ASTILY   06:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict options spoiling my edit
I just met an edit conflict. I now have to manage two columns, seven colors, twelve options, and still cannot get it. Right now, a straight F*K YOU is appropriate. -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you going on about? Edit conflict management is a lot better now. On the right is the current version of the page. On the left in yellow are your changes. I haven't had an edit conflict in a while, but I believe the changes made by the editor who caused the conflict will be highlighted blue. Amaury ( talk | contribs ) 00:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I said: it is NOT better. I see lots of colors, dozens of options, and loads of textual 'helps'. Two columns, five text squares. Fussed texts. Texts talking about "your text" — which is invisible. -DePiep (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not even a process (wizard, step-through). -DePiep (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, isn't the new edit-conflict interface opt-in-only, under beta features? I agree that the old one was plain awful, and I generally had to resort to going back in my browser to retrieve my edit manually. —Cryptic 02:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's normally opt-in (at ); but if has "Automatically enable all new beta features" set at the top of that page, it becomes opt-out - but they can't turn off individual beta features without turning off "Automatically enable all new beta features" as well. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

{{Archive box collapsible}} seems to be broken when using Google Chrome

 * Transcluding issue here for help, please.
 * UPDATE: I just looked at {{Collapse}} and have the same issue. What should be expandable sections don't display the [show] button. So it's apparently something to do with the way Chrome handles that function. Thanks for any help that can be offered!— D'Ranged 1 |  VTalk  :  10:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me in Google Chrome 61.0.3163.79 on Windows 10. Try updating Chrome and restarting the computer. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the time, it means one of your userscripts/gadgets/browser extensions broke. I didn't fully look into your scripts, but at least this from User:D%27Ranged_1/vector.js was causing you fatal errors on every page load. Please regularly evaluate what you use, and if it creates errors in your browser's console. See also: Help:Locating broken scripts. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: XTools ArticleInfo gadget
Hello! The XTools team is happy to announce the revival of the popular XTools gadget. Before this was offered as a user script (meta:User:Hedonil/XTools), but now we'd like to propose it as a proper gadget here on the English Wikipedia, meaning you could turn it on in your gadget preferences. The gadget will work with all skins. Here's a screenshot:

Documentation can be found at XTools. If you'd like to try it out now, add the following to your common.js (or global.js to install for all wikis):

Thank you for your consideration! — MusikAnimal  talk  19:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems useful, works, no objections from my part. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 21:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with TheDJ. Can't hurt to have as a gadget. Regards  So Why  07:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'm hoping this is OK based on this limited but positive feedback :) — MusikAnimal  talk  01:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you change the HTTP links to HTTPS links? Jc86035 (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All the links are using HTTPS for me, except the links to XTools itself. I'm not sure why our framework isn't returning HTTPS when we're querying the service over HTTPS, but either way T170989 will redirect any non-secure requests to HTTPS. We'll hopefully have that done before too long — MusikAnimal  talk  18:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Template vandalism somewhere
Hey detectives, I know that there's some template vandalism somewhere, but I'm having trouble tracking it down. I was searching for spam links to songsportalhd.tk. There are three articles that contain the links, The links appear numerous times in various sidebar templates, however I don't see the links in any of those template, so I surmise they're being transcluded from somewhere else. Your help is appreciated. And if you figure it out, I'd appreciate a quick note on how you solved it. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * List of castra in Romania
 * History of Kenya
 * Serbian traditional clothing
 * I think I figured it out. A page purge seems to have cleared them. The offending party edited Template:Linkexist... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Image in the Zoey Deutsch article
I recently removed a probably copyvio image from the local article. Checking the links of that image on Commons, I noticed that the Ukrainian version of the article has the same image, but the image is newer than the article. The image was uploaded on 3 September 2017, yet the article version on 14 March 2017 also displays the image. I also checked the infobox of the Ukranian article in edit mode and there is no image link in it. Please see uk:Зої Дойч. How can that happen? The Russian article has similar image-display characteristics. Please see ru:Дойч, Зои. Dr.  K.  16:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes can be configured to automatically display an image based on a Wikidata parameter. My first guess is that is what is happening here.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Edgar. In that case, if the image is a copyvio it still gets to be displayed. That's a problem. Dr.   K.  18:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The image can be nominated for deletion at Commons and in the meantime, this edit at Wikidata could be reverted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

admicos.cf
I'm about to look into an email sent to Wikimedia that refers to the following page:

//en.wiki.admicos.cf/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial

It certainly looks like Wikipedia but I don't recognize "admicos.cf"

Can someone enlighten me?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Recent changes" shows it's a live mirror of the English Wikipedia. See Live mirrors. It's not made by the Wikimedia Foundation. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the email is about but it may apply equally to our own Randomized controlled trial. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both comments. I think the email does refer to our own article by the same name, but I was thrown by the URL and wanted to learn more about it before responding.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata description editing in the Wikipedia Android app
Wikidata description editing is a feature being rolled out on the Wikipedia app for Android. While this primarily impacts Wikidata, the change also addresses a concern about the mobile versions of Wikipedia. Now the mobile users will be able to directly edit the descriptions shown under the title of the page and in the search results from the Wikipedia app. We began by rolling out this feature months ago to a pilot group of Wikipedias in the beginning (Russian, Hebrew, and Catalan), then to all the others, and have seen very positive results including numerous quality contributions in the form of new and updated descriptions, and a low rate of vandalism. We are now ready for the last phase of rolling out this editing feature, which is to enable it for English in a few weeks.

As always, if you have any concerns, please reach out to us on wiki at the talk page for this project or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thanks!

Elitre (WMF) (talk) on behalf of -DBrant (WMF), 13:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We have recently removed the Wikidata description from the mobile site, see Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138, where the reading team agreed to turn this off. Either this description is not visible in the app, in which case this new "feature" will do absolutely nothing here, or it will at the same time make the description again visible, which would be rather surprising and premature. Like I said at the RfC, this is the wrong solution for this problem (but a typical effort in pushing Wikidata instead of looking for the easiest and best solution). Descriptions, being language-dependent, don't belong in Wikidata, which is meant for common things across language versions. Descriptions should be (if we need them at all) stored on local wikis, where changes to them will be much easier and faster spotted by people fluent in the language and actualy watching the article, and then wouldn't require an extra "edit wikidata through this link" on every page.
 * Please don't rollout this "feature" here.
 * Oh, and I don't edit Mediawiki, and these discussions should be out in the open, not done by email, so please check concerns here instead. Fram (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Fram, I think some clarification will help here, but definitely let us know (I know you will ;)) if you continue to have concerns. Wikidata descriptions have been in the Android and iOS apps for several years now and we are talking about a feature in the Android app that will allow a user to edit what they see. For the apps, this makes the feature more robust, solving a primary concern people have raised about having something appear that previously could not be edited from Wikipedia. We have launched it in all languages except English (English is our last) and the contribution quality and rate has been stunning. The mobile web is a different situation: Wikidata descriptions were launched on the mobile web of en-WP in January of 2017, and the RFC in March was to remove them from mobile web of en-WP, which we did. We are not talking about rolling any new features out onto the mobile web at this time.
 * As to the overall issue mentioned in the RFC about wikidata description storage in the first place, I agree that descriptions, being language specific, add the least marginal value to being in Wikidata--I think the argument for having them becomes one of simply storing all of the structured data in one place. If we store them instead on each Wiki, it becomes very hard to pull it, as each project uses different rules, etc and Wikidata is expressly designed to store this effectively.  But you are right that there are downsides, which the team has acknowledged from the beginining.  If we make it so that you can edit it from Wikipedia and you can track it from wikipedia (as though it were an article edit), I think we can get the benefits without the downsides of storing it on Wikidata.  This feature is a step in the direction of mitigating an issue that has been there for several years as we progress towards making it even better.  Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight (as I may misunderstand): when we discovered that Wikidata descriptions were shown in mobile (which most admins and editors, being editors, don't use that often if ever), we got you (WMF) to remove it after some discussion. But no one at your side thought to inform us that the same descriptions, with the exact same serious issues, where also shown in the andoid app (and presumably elsewhere), and that they should have been removed there as well at the same time? That's... staggering.
 * The feature doesn't make this "more robust", that's like calling two snowflakes more robust than one; it makes it marginally less problematic, while adding a link and siphoning mobile editors to Wikidata, which is problematic (as these editors now will have to learn mutliple editing environments instead of one, with different approaches and policies (or in the case of Wikidata, a severe lack of them)).
 * Please first remove the Wikidata descriptions from anywhere they are shown on enwiki, and then discuss a) solutions and b) timelines to roll them out. Fram (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we can at least agree that the present change (enabling users to edit descriptions in a situation where they already see them, rather than "mak[ing] the description again visible") is a step in the right direction regarding the concerns raised in the context of the RfC, even if we disagree about the step's size ("marginally" - I think it's actually a large and important step; it was listed as blocker back then). Regarding "adding a link and siphoning mobile editors to Wikidata": The new feature is limited to editing descriptions and no other Wikidata content, while keeping the app's full existing Wikipedia editing capability. The feature includes an onboarding experience educating users about what content is appropriate (based on the corresponding content guideline, which does actually exist, despite the insinuation above), plus notifies them if their edit has been reverted. In both aspects, this is ahead of the normal (Wikipedia) editing experience on mobile (web or app).
 * "when we discovered " - who exactly is "we"? "thought to inform us" - As far as I recall, the fact that the app shows these descriptions had been highlighted and discussed several times on enwiki village pump pages since 2014, both by WMF staff and volunteer editors. And in the context of the withdrawn March/April 2017 RfC, several WMF staff mentioned the app too, e.g. Chris ("They [Wikidata descriptions] are used in the mobile app for searching and in the articles as short descriptions"), and Olga (the product manager of the team responsible for mobile web) who highlighted the exact Android app editing feature that we are talking about now. The need for such a feature was also expressed subsequently in a thread on this very page: "How can I edit the subtitle used in the official (Android) mobile app?".
 * BTW: '"most admins and editors, being editors, don't use [mobile versions of Wikipedia] that often if ever" - I find that a rather surprising claim. Is there data to back it up? (The fact that most editing happens on desktop does not imply that people make edits are not also using their phones to read Wikipedia in other situations.)
 * Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood me, I didn't claim that this is "a step in the right direction", I consider it a step in the wrong direction, a band-aid across a festering wound. Please link to the appropriate content guideline which you claim exists. ""when we discovered " - who exactly is "we"?" The enwiki admin and editing community which cares about these things? When I raised this issue for the first time, most editors indicated their surprise (and dismay) about this. ""thought to inform us"" at the RfC, where the WMF indicated that they would remove this from the mobile view. Instead of asking these questions, you could have read the discussion I linked to in my first post, and the discussions linked to from there, like Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive950. Then you would see that this came to many people as a surprise, and that the request was to remove these descriptions from mobile view (without an exception for e.g. the android app). The official communication from the WMF was "Hi all, based on the raised concerns, we have decided to turn the wikidata descriptions feature off for enwiki for the time being." I don't see anything there indicating "but we will keep it on the app, and perhaps on other places as well, haha!". At no time in that RfC was there any indication that this feature was kept alive at the app (and perhaps elsewhere?).
 * As for that later Village pump discussion; comments include "You can only edit it on what's rapidly becoming my least favorite website, Wikidata", "I will leave it to the community to decide if the spirit of the RFC is being complied with by those results.", "this is not just a problem when viewing a page (which the English Wikipedia community has expressed concerns with) but that this non-enwiki data is also being shown on English Wikipedia search results. Is this being addressed? ". I don't see any enthusiasm for getting that description from Wikidata though. Fram (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So you made an assumption about mobile web and the app being the same thing and now that your assumption is proven wrong you make this someone else's problem ? That doesn't seem entirely fair to me either. I'm sure assumptions were made by multiple people. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 09:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ?? No. I made the assumption that WMF people would be competent and fair. Why I still make that assumption is not clear, I am probably fooled by those that are and forget that usually one encounters the other type (most only lacking one or the other trait, sometimes both). Please indicate how and where at the RfC it was made clear that the app would not be affected by the promised shutdown by the WMF, considering that it was included in the discussion and faced the exact same problems? The RfC was to remove descriptions from mobile view, and one of the ways to get a mobile view of enwiki is through the android app (see List of Wikipedia mobile applications and Help:Mobile access). How you can equate this with "make this someone else's problem" is not really clear. Fram (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We were having an RFC where we directly talked to the mobile WEB team, and hardly ever mentioned the mobile apps (it was clearly in the original complaint, but not so explicit in the RFC). There is also a BIG difference between app development and web development, as releases for the App team are much more involved and rare than for the weekly web releases and they have different product managers and teams. The feature was also already enabled in apps for months, before it was intially brought to mobile web, so I don't think it's illogical for the mobile web product manager to not consider the desired and 'assumed' impact for a totally different team. If you want to be combatitive about something like that, then that is up to you, but I prefer to keep this discussion constructive. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we were having an RfC where we talked to the WMF, and everyone (bar you) could give a flying fuck what TEAM we were talking with. Furthermore, according to the RfC, our contact at the WMF was someone from the Reading team, not the mobile WEB team or the App team or whatever. I would much like to see some constructive criticism from you here, instead of the obstructive comments you have made so far. When we get a promise from the "WMF reading team" (their words), and when the "Senior Director, Head of Reading" is directly involved as well, I don't think it is really useful or fair to claim that it should have been obvious that we were talking to the mobile web team only, and that they are incapable of contacting other WMF teams to raise our concerns. Fram (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm walking away from this 'discussion', as this will not lead to anything good. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 11:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Discussion" as in "The DJ tells something wrong, gets corrected, tells something else that's even more incorrect, gets corrected again, and walks away"? No idea why you even bothered to show up. Fram (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Before the RfC started, TheDJ actually tried to clarify the issue (in a post you replied to) at Village pump (technical)/Archive 154: "It should be pointed out that the descriptions are used in many more areas (including the mobile app, search results and dozens of downstream tools like https://tools.wmflabs.org/monumental etc). I don't see how turning it off in one place, would move us much forward, and I fear that with reduced visibility of Wikidata labels the problem will become larger instead of smaller." PrimeHunter (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good for him. That doesn't change the mistakes in his above statements, making it seem as if it is our (or my) mistake that this is only turned off in one form of mobile Wikipedia view and not others, because I only talked with the Reading team which obviously only deals with one kind of reading and not others. Urging the WMF to turn the descriptions off in those other areas would be much more useful. Fram (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

(Moving and outdenting the following two comments, as they appear to pertain to the original post rather than forming part of the subsequent conversation. --Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC))
 * I can't help but have misgiving about this Having had a rash of image vandalism recently where the vandalism even after purging on the desktop or mobile sites remains visible on the app, we now have the facility to easily vandalise article descriptions that is a) not going to be seen by most people who are in a position to do something about it and b) may remain visible even after the descriptions are corrected on Wikidata. Doesn't sound like the best advert for Wikipedia, and yes I have read the mediawiki page and the protections proposed. Nthep (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the logic here. We have seen similar problems with google, apple dictionary and museum websites etc after vandalism. If we don't want to have an open door for vandalism, get pending changes introduced already and stop pretending that we are an open wiki. As long as make things as complicated for ourselves as we do, problems like these are inevitable and you should just file bug reports for them. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 09:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, the image vandalism was referring to the "In the news" problem reported above, now being investigated at T174993. This looks unrelated to the descriptions (it's a different part of the app and a different data source).
 * In general, vandalism is of course always a possibility, both on Wikipedia and Wikidata. Enabling users to fix it if it happens (or to make other improvements) is in fact among the benefits of this new editing feature on the app. Conversely, ensuring that contributions via that new button aren't becoming a major new source of vandalism on Wikidata has been very much on the team's mind when developing the feature. (As a reminder, the main (Wikipedia) article content has been editable from the app for a long time.)
 * At this point, over 60,000 description edits have already been made with this app feature; and we have been monitoring it closely (in particular the revert rate) since February, when it was activated for the first few Wikipedia languages. Nthep, you mentioned that you already looked at feature's documentation page which mentions e.g. the tools that the Wikidata community has made available this year which allow improved monitoring of description edits. There is also a subpage with the results of the data analysis.
 * When the initial data looked good, the feature was gradually rolled out to more languages. Since July, it has been active on all languages except English. Of course the positive results in the other languages do not offer an absolute guarantee for English, so we're going to monitor the impact of the rollout there as well. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There have been plenty of other WMF "improvempents" which have been accepted by all or most other wikis and rejected by enwiki, for whatever reason. Perhaps because we are more critical, perhaps we have more power to actually force the WMF to sometimes accept the negative opinion from here, perhaps beecause the benefit of these new tools and features is much less significant for enwiki than for small language versions (e.g. much of the info on Wikidata comes from four or five big wikis, including enwiki; for small wikis Wikidata may be a source of information, but for enwiki the roles are usually reversed). "In general, vandalism is of course always a possibility, both on Wikipedia and Wikidata. Enabling users to fix it if it happens (or to make other improvements) is in fact among the benefits of this new editing feature on the app." Of course, when you didn't pull this from Wikidata, all vandalism could already be easily monitored and reverted. Removing the Wikidata descriptions from the app, which was what the RfC clearly wanted, would also prevent all description vandalism from reaching enwiki. I really don't care that you are "going to monitor the rollout" when the rollout is not what we want here in the first place. Fram (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

 * This is absolutely unacceptable. This is a governance issue.  The WMF has no right whatsoever to interfere with content.  The en-WP community made this clear to you people in the RfC that we already had - this also made clear the policy issues with BLP and Verify - these are core policies in en=WP and Wikidata has no such policies.  I am stunned to hear that you all interpreted the RfC about mobile in some narrow lawyerly sense. Of course that applies to apps etc.
 * Do we need to waste the community's time with another RfC?
 * Again - The WMF has  no right to mix and match content among projects. NONE. This is deeply wrong and misguided. Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Comment - I have the impression that since descriptions are article as well as language-specific so closely bound to articles, a solution may be to provide an optional template allowing to add those at the top of articles (i.e. ). Internally it would not matter how those were processed/cached/displayed/stored (including on wikidata), but the source would remain directly as part of the article and managed/patrolled by the same language-specific project editors...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * we said no to this, unambiguously. Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I have posted about the problem with the Wikidata descriptions at Village pump (policy). Fram (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Mobile app localization?
Hello. I'd like to know if and how I can localize the Wikipedia app to show the featured article and picture, in the news, and DYK on the Scots version. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 17:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See Translation of app string resources. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually to get the content, which I think is what you mean, you apparently need to configure Featured feeds. We have then on English Wikipedia as well, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/MediaWiki:Ffeed —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 11:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, that was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks! -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 16:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Once that is done for the featured article please ping me and/or file a Phabricator task with the tag Mobile-Content-Service. Then I'd be happy to test and add the new language to the feed for the apps. Thanks! The other entries are a different: POTD comes from Commons. DYK is not yet included in the feed but it wouldn't hurt to add the appropriate pages to the MediaWiki namespace for it. BSitzmann (WMF) (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already done those. Thanks in advance! -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 16:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist fails to report new edits
My watchlist contains roughly 100 items. It's set to show the last thirty days, with nothing hidden, but for a couple of weeks it has only shown "the last 0 changes in the last 720 hours," ie nothing. The pages I watch are hardly Wikipedia's busiest, so I checked to see if, indeed, there might have been no new edits. It turns out there 'have' been new edits all along. Is there something broken, or am I doing something wrong? ARK (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Village pump (technical)/Archive 158, or if you don't want to search quite so diligently, just above at #Watchlist cuts off at 250 entries. —Cryptic 18:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing the watchlist preferences did the trick, thanks! ARK (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what to do
Hi there. I'm not sure what to do with this redirect. The article has been deleted here three time. I don't know if the redirect should be reverted or deleted. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

 * The user that redirected this seems to have been doing  lot of redirecting very recently ! Special:Contributions/Zawl. Maybe his account has been hijacked? This needs looking into. Aspro (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes, maybe an admin should put a block on his account quick, until we find out what's happening. Aspro (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Block PDQ. The redirects are still coming ! Aspro (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The account was blocked, but I believe this was the incorrect course of action. Bhad Bhabie was created with substantially more sources than the deleted Danielle Bregoli (personality).  Should we not have asked Zawl to explain his thought process before blocking?  (he has been unblocked, for the record)   78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 18:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-37
<section begin="technews-2017-W37"/> Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * You can get a notification when a page you created is connected to a Wikidata item. You can choose to get these notifications in your preferences. Some wikis already had this option. It is now available on all wikis.
 * The Newsletter extension is now on mediawiki.org. The newsletter extension is for newsletters where you can subscribe by getting a notification when a new issue has been published. It will come to more wikis later.
 * The Linter extension helps you find technical errors in articles. There is now a new high-priority category: . This usually affects templates with horizontal lists. You can read more about using Linter and the Tidy whitespace bug.

Problems
 * Tech News 2017/36 reported about new filters for edit review coming to watchlists. This was planned to happen last week. It will happen next week instead.

Changes later this week
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 September. It will be on all wikis from 14 September (calendar).
 * Octicons-tools.svg OOjs UI will be updated. This could affect some icons. You can read more about the changes.

Meetings
 * Octicons-tools.svg You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 13 September at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
 * Octicons-sync.svg You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 12 September at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes
 * You can't use OCG to create PDFs after 1 October. This is because of technical problems. You can use Electron instead. Most PDFs are already created with Electron. Electron will get missing features before 1 October. You can create books but they will not have all planned features until November or December. You can read more on mediawiki.org.
 * New filters for edit review are available now on recent changes as a beta feature. Some of those filters and other features will be deployed as default features in the coming weeks. Users will be able to opt out in their preferences.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. <section end="technews-2017-W37"/> 19:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Can this 🤔🤔🤔 be prevented?
Technically, is there a simple way of preventing Emojis (or whatever these things are called) being added to articles, leaving articles looking like this ? If so, where would I ask for such prevention to be implemented? - Arjayay (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This could be done through the use of a rather simple edit filter. Pop over to the requests page -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 17:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, an edit filter would work but I don't see the point, as this wouldn't stop vandalism but would stop instances of the legitimate usage of emoji in articles (which is rare but definitely happens). It would be worth adding a tag for repeating emoji, tho. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Unwanted emojis in articles seems like a minor issue and not worth stopping with an edit filter, but I think emojis in edit summaries are annoying when they display as color images in watchlists, page histories, user contributions and so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Since this subject came up. Emojis on signatures probably looks cute to the user ... but everytime I see it, I have a knee-jerk reaction that I'm looking at malware popping up with a devilish smile. Maybe Wikipedia should have a policy on displaying emojis, period.  I know a lot of online users like these emojis, but I can't help but think Wikipedia has been infested with malware when I see it attached to signatures. — Maile  (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

 * There are actually usernames that are emojis. Dr.   K.  18:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hehehe 🙃 (more seriously, this would cause huge problems in talkpages). FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY  <sup style="color:#c22">[u+1F602]  <em style="font-size:10px;">18:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is already an edit filter for certain unicode emoji ranges added to articles. It gets about 100 hits per day.  We filtered these for the same reason we filter people adding "pooop" or "fucker" to articles.  No, it won't stop a determined vandal, but experience suggests that a significant fraction of childish vandals give up when a filter objects.  Without checking, I would assume that whatever symbol was used isn't part of the ranges that we commonly encounter.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * IMHO, on the basis of damage limitation, if a few editors have to change their fancy signatures, in order to prevent our articles looking like the output of an incontinent fruit machine, they should all be removed, not just from article space, but from all pages. - Arjayay (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

A filter for repeating emoji in content namespaces (Article, Template, Category, Module, etc.) would probably be a good idea. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Finding noindex tag
A reader<PHONE_NUMBER>021534 wondered why Giuseppe Mastromatteo has the code: <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow”/>

I'm not seeing it, but I also note that a Google search doesn't list this item on the first page so I'm believing it is there. Shouldn't I be able see that tag if I click on edit source?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's in the html source sent to your browser, not in the wiki source. New articles are noindexed for 90 days unless they are reviewed. See Controlling search engine indexing. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It'a automatic; the article was created at 17:19, 10 July 2017 so isn't old enough yet. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. However, I thought unreviewed articles had a tag indicating that they had not yet been reviewed, [Mark this page as patrolled], is my recollection flawed?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see "Curate this article" under Tools in the left pane. If I click that then I get Page Curation on the right. It includes "Mark this page as reviewed". PrimeHunter (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Linking to a result in an on-line database
The GlobIZ website allows me to search for various moth taxa; for instance pasting "Agastophanes" into the search field and clicking on the link gives good information that could be used as a reference. However, that page has the same web address as the search page. Is there a way to link directly to the search result? Is there a way to archive a search result? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨   22:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd say to use their permalink feature, but they don't have a permalink feature. Probably the only option is to cite the page and add a little note saying something like "search for agastophanes to obtain specific data".  Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You can use the  parameter at Template:Cite web, e.g.:
 * PrimeHunter (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ideas. If there's any other feedback, please ping me as I'm taking this off my watchlist. SchreiberBike | ⌨   01:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ideas. If there's any other feedback, please ping me as I'm taking this off my watchlist. SchreiberBike | ⌨   01:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Place to contact Wikipedia coders for help
Hi, I was advised that this would be the forum for my request – I was wondering if there was some sort of "centralized location" where editors can place help requests for Wikipedia coders to help them out, if they are unable to do the coding themselves.

There is an issue that I and several other editors who edit articles related to music singles and albums have – the majority of those articles use the Single chart and Album chart templates which link to the websites of the chart providers in each country, in order to show the peak chart position that the single/album attained in various countries. Additionally, many articles also use Certification Table Entry (and its myriad of sub-templates) to link to the certifying body in each country to verify the gold or platinum discs a record has received, and the accompanying implied sales figures.

Because these three templates link to many different sources outside Wikipedia, they tend to be quite dynamic: the websites of chart providers and certifying bodies often get revamped and restructured, frequently leading to a lot of broken links. And because of the necessity to use the archive database of these charts, it's not always as simple as just altering the website address in the template to point to the right place.

The problem is that most of the editors who work on these articles are good at creating content, but unable to modify the templates unless it's a basic fix. And the two editors who created the templates in the first place are no longer active on Wikipedia, so we have to ask for outside help. There are a couple of coders who have very kindly been helping us out as and when they can, but it would be nice if we didn't have to pester the same people over and over again, and just place our requests at a centralized help desk staffed by coders, and whoever has some time available can say, "I'll take a look at it". Thanks for your help. Richard3120 (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There are different types of coding. You can ask for template coding at Requested templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Become an English Wikipedia Technical Ambassador today!
Hello fellow wikipedians, I'm writing you as one of the active tech ambassadors for English Wikipedia to ask for help! I would like to encourage you to sign up for a role of Tech Ambassador, you can do so, here and read more on what the role consists of here. If you have any questions, feel free to email me or ask me on my talk page. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 14:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Cannot move page that has template-protection for its move protection
Something strange is going on here. The protection levels on move protection for Template:MathSciNet and Template:MR were recently downgraded from "full" (requires an administrator) to "template protection" (must be a template editor). However, when I attempt to move either page, I receive he message "(Green lock) This page is currently protected so that only administrators can move it." with alternatives about how to move these pages. I'm not sure why this is happening: I should be able to move these pages since I am a template editor, and the protection levels for move protection on these pages have been downgraded to template protection. What is going on? Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting, you are indeed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Steel1943 a template editor], so should be able to move these templates, which as you say have move protection to TE level (and edit protection to semi level). Maybe a recent software change? -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Now I can move both pages. And a template editor has since moved the pages. I suppose there is some lag someplace regarding the protection level change... Steel1943  (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw (and still see) <div style="clear: both; margin: 0.2em 0; border: 1px solid #bb7070; background: #ffdbdb; padding: 0.25em 0.9em;"> WARNING: This page has been protected so that only users with administrative rights can move it.<ul><li> </li></ul>View full log I moved it anyway. — JJMC89  (T·C) 22:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed all protection, made an edit, and restored the TE protection. I don't see the admin-only warning that JJMC89 saw.  Could someone with TE rights look at the template now?  Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I still see the same warning. — JJMC89  (T·C) 22:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Though I am now able to move the page, I also see the warning message JJMC89 referenced above. Steel1943  (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose then the next question is ... what page in the "MediaWiki:" namespace is being called to display the warning message JJMC89 and I see when moving a page with template-protection-level move-protection? Steel1943  (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is MediaWiki:protectedpagemovewarning. I think the switch there needs to be on  instead of  . — JJMC89  (T·C) 02:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The interface message has been updated. — JJMC89  (T·C) 15:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In removing all the protection and then re-adding the protection, somehow the edit-level protection was upgraded from confirmed to template editor (without any discussion that I can currently find). I see this request to downgrade the move-level protection from admin/sysop to template editor but I see no discussion of upgrading the edit-protection from confirmed to template editor. Is there a reason for the change and can it be returned to confirmed so confirmed editors can continue editing the template? Thank you. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm sorry — I see what you mean. When unprotecting and reprotecting, I meant to put things back just as they were; I must have misread the logs, because I thought that the thing had required TE both to edit and to move.  [I don't remember ever before seeing TE required to move but autoconfirmed required to edit.]  Therefore, when you asked, I thought you were objecting to the very idea of unprotecting and reprotecting, not questioning the reason for the "net upgrade" from semiprotection to TE.  Nyttend (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you fixing that as I can now appeal to a larger set of editors to get changes made (more editors can respond to edit semi-protected than edit template-protected) and I am sure confirmed editors will appreciate being able to directly edit the template again. Thank you. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This crashes the database
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Flyer22+Reborn&namespace=0&newOnly=1 <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh now it's working. It was failing earlier. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt that it was "crashing the database". More likely the query was simply timing out. Anomie⚔ 15:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What Anomie said. There are a few actions that have the potential to temporarily crash the database, but they're all obscure functions that are at minimum restricted to admins. ‑ Iridescent 15:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Page with wrong latest revision
The revision as of 00:34, 24 July 2010 appears to be the latest revision in the history of User talk:Brendanmccabe/You Lucky Dog (2010 Television Film). However, if you look into the bot's 50 oldest contributions, the revision does not have "(current)" next to it. Also, if you view the 3 user talk pages created by Brendanmccabe, the creation at 18:28, 23 July 2010 has "(current)" next to it. The page's page_latest field in the database was not updated when a new revision was inserted. Finally, the edit summary says "moved", but in fact the page was not actually moved at all. Are there any other pages where the latest revision is wrong? GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The bot tried to move the talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brendanmccabe/You_Lucky_Dog_(2010_Television_Film)&action=history] and associated non-talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Brendanmccabe/You_Lucky_Dog_(2010_Television_Film)&action=history] to the same Wikipedia talk page. Only the non-talk page was actually moved. Articles for creation was placed in the Wikipedia talk namespace at the time because IP's could create talk pages but not other pages (the draft namespace is newer). I guess the bot was trying to move the talk page along with the draft in the non-talk page. I don't know what happens today if you select "Move associated talk page" while moving a non-talk page to a talk page. In July 2010 it apparently caused a misleading page history entry in the talk page, at last when a bot did it via the API. I don't know whether there are other cases. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can an administrator please fix the problem causing "page_latest" for the above user talk page to be wrong? Try running attachLatest.php on this wiki with "--regenerate-all" set to true, if possible. Otherwise, try deleting and then undeleting the page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem which couldn't be fixed by just making a dummy edit to the page? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Graphics Lab/Photography workshop
Resolved sections on this page are not being archived anymore. Could someone please attempt to fix that issue? Thanks. --Leyo 08:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * it's because is down (again). So it's a problem for the botops, nothing we can do here at VPT. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The last archiving was 15 July [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop&diff=790623543&oldid=790588534]. ClueBot III has only been down since 25 August. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but was not  - after the bot went down. That "temporarily disable autoarchive" on the part of  explains the lack of archiving between 15 July and 28 August. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh right. So I wasted a lot of time investigating the situation because Leyo failed to say that archiving had been disabled until two days ago. Sigh. I did look for recent edit summaries mentioning archiving but Leyo didn't say it when enabling it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect that digging into the history was needed to answer the question. Sorry about that. Let's hope that the issue ClueBot III will get resolved soon. --Leyo 22:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * and everyone else, I disabled the archiving because the current configuration will archive section, as the   appears the same as   to ClueBot. The proper way to fix that would be to change the instructions to an edit notice. I started working on one at Template:Graphics Lab/editnotice. Now that I'm back from wikibreak, I'll also be manually archiving the page regularly again, at least until we can get the bot working as intended. --  AntiCompositeNumber (Ring me) 01:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulty understanding your phrase "as the  appears the same as   to ClueBot". Have you missed something out here? -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Based on the source, AntiCompositeNumber may have tried to display "as the  appears the same as   to ClueBot". I'm not sure what it means but I think I know the archiving problem. The new request link at Graphics Lab/Photography workshop preloads Template:Graphics Lab/new request/preload which includes:. The removed archive instructions [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop&diff=790693155&oldid=790623543] said:. See User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis for. It causes the bot to archive all sections with the preloaded text because the comment contains the  string.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop&diff=790504095&oldid=790495857]. It was only intended to archive sections where an editor has added resolved. A possible but inelegant solution would be to complicate the preloaded instructions like:. If a user keeps uppercase RESOLVED then the template works via a redirect but the bot doesn't archive until an editor changes it to lowercase. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I should really stop using and ignoring it in the preview, it seems to cause more trouble than it's worth. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Ring me) 12:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of the various template-linking templates? The basic one is, but I find to be more useful, also . So in your last comment you could have written  which displays as ; and earlier on you could have used  which displays as . -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ClueBot III [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ClueBot_III?offset=20170906012400&limit=10 was restarted at 01:23, 6 September 2017] and archiving of Graphics Lab/Photography workshop occurred at . -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, but it's done incorrectly as you can see in the diff you provided. --Leyo 18:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You wanted to know why it wasn't being archived. We explained it. Archiving started again. Why is it now a problem? -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I explained why it archives too much above and gave a possible but inelegant solution. You have to do something or the same will repeat every day. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if I got your solution right. Could you implement it so that we may see, if it really works? --Leyo 07:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Graphics_Lab/new_request/preload&diff=prev&oldid=800407491][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop&diff=prev&oldid=800408202] PrimeHunter (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It worked.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop&diff=800457780&oldid=800408202] Only sections with lowercase  were archived. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Lysteria bot and shadowing
There have been previous discussions about Lysteria bot and non-free images (the most recent one was Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 158) and an attempt to get input from the bot's operator was made User talk:Magnus Manske, but the bot still continues to inappropriately add non-free images to pages such as User:Stinglehammer/Gothic writers 3 and User:Jane023/Female novelists in violation of WP:NFCC.

The two files it keeps adding this time are File:Stevie Smith.jpg and File:Sylvia Townsend Warner.jpg. Both of these files are/were shadowing Commons files (c:File:Stevie Smith.jpg and c:File:Sylvia Townsend Warner.jpg), but one of the Commons files has already been deleted as a copyvio and the other is nominated for deletion for the same reason. It seems that there should be some way for the bot to distinguish between a freely licensed file or a non-free file; otherwise, any time someone (perhaps in good faith) uploads a copyvio to Commons which has the same name as a local English Wikipedia file, the bot is going to add the local file by mistake.

Files shadowing other files is a problem for sure, and if simply moving the local file is the best solution, then fine; however, moving is kind of pointless when the Commons file is almost surely going to be deleted. In this case, the bot still seems to "think" that the Commons file for Sylvia Townsend still exists, and therefore keeps re-adding what it believe to be a Commons file to the two aforementioned pages. If it simply takes a few days for the bot to get this out of its system, then OK if, however, the bot is going to continue to make the same mistake in perpetuity, then something needs to be tweaked to stop this. I'm sure the bot does lots of good work, but there needs to be some way for it to "realize" to not keep re-adding files which have been removed for WP:NFCCP reasons. Perhaps there's some way to tweak the local file's page (WP:HIDDENCAT or WP:MAGIC) to let the bot know not to re-add the file? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's because the link to that file wasn't removed from Wikidata yet, see this edit. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 06:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine and thank you for doing that. The question is then whether the bot can subsequently remove any non-free files it mistakenly adds to pages if the file Commons file being shadowed is deleted and the Wikidata has been edited accordingly or the shadowing local file is subsequently renamed. If it can, then it can self-correct any NFCC#9 problems; if not, then maybe it should be set (if possible) to distingusih between non-free and free to avoid such problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * technology can do many things, it just depends how much time you pour into it. If you are asking if it is likely that someone is going to change that specific bot to look for deletions that have been made, then I'd say no. Rather, I think this more points towards the problem that CommonsDelinker currently doesn't remove deleted files from WikiData. This so far has been a minor issue, but i've seen multiple complaints recently, that basically would have been avoided if it did have this capability. I think it is more likely that that bot is adapted and I have left some feedback in the bug system of that project. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 08:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that tweaking another bot might be a way to resolve this, so thank for trying to help sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Merging infobox
I was trying to merge Infobox Tibetan Buddhist monastery with Infobox religious building but there are too many different parameters. Some of those I am stuck with include order, no._of_monks, etc. Would anyone like to help? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  03:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So maybe you shouldn't try to merge them. The same probably is true of infobox XXX church and infobox XXX monastery (or whatever). What you're trying to do seems to me better done by categorization of the articles involved, and has probably already been done. --Thnidu (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see the template, then you would know the result of merge discussion. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  12:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Bot request
Is it possible to add such cleanup tasks to one f the existing bots or create a bot for such cleanups? These fill up the maintenance cat of unknown parameters unnecessarily. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  12:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Even GA level articles has such issues. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  12:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Try Bot requests. -- Green  C  13:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Any problems with nested articles
I have created a nested article, "Reverse surge" which trancludes page "{{:Voltage spike}}" while adding a special top hatnote about others as "...see: Surge". However, I wonder are there problems with bottom categories, or other technical issues to beware with nested articles? -Wikid77 (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It would create almost identical articles and we don't do this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reverse_surge&action=edit&oldid=800490720] at the English Wikipedia. We redirect the page per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, and consider placing Redirect at top of the target if the redirected term is ambiguous.  . Mail software (and other software like MediaWiki itself) will often try to convert some text strings to links, e.g. if they start with https:// . It's common that they guess a link stops before certain characters like "(" and ".". MediaWiki gets this one right: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cultural_health_(2nd_nomination)&diff=next&oldid=800898836. Help:URL shows percent encoding which could help such software but the link becomes less human readable with encoded characters like   instead of  . PrimeHunter (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You can test your mail software by sending this to yourself via Special:EmailUser:

Unencoded plain text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cultural_health_(2nd_nomination)&diff=next&oldid=800898836

Encoded plain text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cultural_health_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=next&oldid=800898836
 * Both strings are converted to correct links by my mail service. Sending it with your own mail software may invalidate the test by converting plain text to links before the mail is sent. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

HELP: Needs Userbox code?
HELP: Needs Userbox code?

IF Possible - At present,  (or "User:UBX/WikiGlobalEdits" ) on a user page (for example, see userbox below - or - in the middle right column of the "User:Drbogdan" profile) - requires that a specific UserName be manually added to the "Global Edit Counter" ( at https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/ ) - and then - the resulting edit counts needs to be manually added to the template ( for example,   )

QUESTION: Is there a way of performing this procedure more automatically - by adding relevant coding?

Thanking you in advance for any help with this - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You can ask for template help at Requested templates. I have coded it to automatically make the link based on the page name.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:UBX/WikiGlobalEdits&diff=prev&oldid=801138939] Wikitext doesn't have access to edit counts or query results so that part can only be automated if a bot or other tool periodically stores the counts for users of the userbox. They could be stored in a central page like User:UBX/WikiGlobalEdits/counts and automatically be read from there but somebody (not me) would have to code and run the bot. It could be requested at Bot requests. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, the userbox currently says "on Wikipedia" but https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/ includes all Wikimedia wikis, e.g. Commons, Wikidata and so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There also exists a MediaWiki module to allow a special variable to expand to an edit count but it is not enabled and may never be (it was proposed and challenged, if I remember). There's an optional JS gadget for users to see their count (but that obviously doesn't update it for other editors).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you *very much* for the *Excellent* comments - and suggestions - they're all *greatly* appreciated - may have to do a bit more homework with this to sort things out - in any case - Thanks again for the help - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Page moves logged twice
If I move a page from name X to page Y, it is logged in the page logs of both pages. OK so far. But as a result, it is also logged twice in my personal contributions list :: is this duplication needed? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. You can't have an action in a page history without it also being an action performed by an individual, and vice versa. Two on one means two on the other; it's like double entry bookkeeping - "for every credit there must be a debit". -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It may often look redundant in the main user contributions page but it can be filtered by namespace, one of the pages might be deleted so contributions are removed, and so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox font size
As a percentage of the page default, what is the font size for the body of an infobox? For verifiability, where in the code can this be seen? ― Mandruss  ☎  00:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It may depend on the infobox, but the Infobox template invokes Module:Infobox which source shows a 125% default which also corresponds to the Infobox template documentation (which also shows abovestyle under its CSS section). I hope this helps, — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect the question was not about the heading but the fields inside the box. Infoboxes have  which sets the size in MediaWiki:Common.css:

.infobox { ...   font-size: 88%;
 * PrimeHunter (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "for the body of an infobox" err, yes.<abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So, per Template:Small, which says 85%, use of within an infobox field produces 74.8% of the page default (0.88 * 0.85), which is below the 85% minimum size specified in the last paragraph at MOS:FONTSIZE. Just wanted to be sure my head is screwed on right about that, and wanted to get the exact numbers. ― Mandruss   ☎  01:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't use in an infobox; more on a recent similar case at User talk:RexxS. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User talk:RexxS says 90% because it is about Infobox solar eclipse which uses Module:Solar eclipse where the default 88% is overridden with this: . PrimeHunter (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Rose, I don't use in infoboxes. I wanted to get the exact numbers to support my occasional removals of that. ― Mandruss   ☎  09:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-38
<section begin="technews-2017-W38"/> Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * You can now see contributions from an IP range at Special:Contributions. Before you could only see contributions from single IP addresses. Some older contributions from IP ranges could be missing at first because it will take some time to add them.
 * Flow has been re-scoped to become Structured Discussions and the development has restarted. Phabricator projects and repositories have been renamed.

Changes later this week
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 September. It will be on all wikis from 21 September (calendar).

Meetings
 * Octicons-sync.svg You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 19 September at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
 * Octicons-tools.svg You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 20 September at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes
 * We are replacing Tidy on Wikimedia wikis. Editors need to fix pages that could break. You can read the simplified instructions for editors. Some wikis have already switched. If your wiki would like to switch to the new format now, you can file a task.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. <section end="technews-2017-W3