Wikipedia talk:Editnotice/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Bugzilla:22236 - creating display:none redlinks are a bad idea in some people's minds

See Bugzilla:22236. Some people think the addition of red-links to non-existant page notices that are display:none 'd to newbies is a bad idea accesability/text-browser wise. Whether the benefit outweighs the cost i have no idea, but thought i'd mention it here as this is the right fourm (Where bugzilla is not). Cheers. Bawolff (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

See also

• Wikipedia:Accessibility#Users_with_limited_CSS.2FJavaScript_support
• Wikipedia:HiddenStructure

Jidanni (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The red "Page notice" link is only added when editing a page, not when reading a page. And the edit pages already have huge amounts of text and links above and below the edit window, so one small red "Page notice" link doesn't make much of a difference. We need those red links for the users that administer the editnotices.

The old hiddenStructure was bad since it was used to hide large amounts of text that became visible already when just reading pages, so that was a very different problem. We have learnt many lessons from the old hiddenStructure. Here we use hardcoded style="display: none;" to hide the red "Page notice" links, instead of CSS code in Common.css, thus hiding these links even when a browser doesn't load Common.css. Although most text based browsers don't understand even hard coded styles, so these links do show up in for instance the Dillo browser (I have tested that). But from what I have read Dillo is now the most popular text based browser, still it is only used by 1 out of 10,000 users. (But I haven't double-checked these stats, I just read them in passing somewhere.) However almost all blind users nowadays use more modern graphical browsers and screen readers that do understand CSS. The text browsers are mostly used on some extra small Linux installations and similar, which is used by seeing users who don't have a problem with such links.

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are key differences between hiddenStructure and the usage here. hiddenStructure was used to hide semantically-meaningful content in an unsophisticated fashion: it would hide the "death" field in an infobox, for instance, when no death date was given. When the stylesheets failed to load, the field would still be displayed in the infobox (albeit without any data), creating factual confusion. Here, CSS is used only for cosmetic reasons: the link still points to the same page whether or not the user is able to edit it; it is just cleaner if the links are not shown to those to whom they are useless. Happy‑melon 13:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it'd be better if the text said Create page notice, instead of just page notice, so that anons using text browsers would have a better idea what the link is for. Bawolff (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Only about 1 out of 10,000 users use a text browser, and perhaps 1 out 100 of them actually edit Wikipedia (remember, these links are only added in edit view). So only about 1 out of 1,000,000 users actually see those links. While all our admins and accountcreators see the links all the time.

Note that it is two links on most pages: Group notice   Page notice, except in article space since where we don't have group notices. Making those links say Create group notice   Create page notice would make them take up more space. And when shown to non-admins in text browsers the text would be untrue since those users can't create those notices (except in user space). And I think it would be less readable to us admins, since it would be harder to see which is the group notice and which is the page notice.

Originally I named them Group editnotice   Page editnotice, since that is the "correct" naming. But I shortened it to Group notice   Page notice to make them less intrusive and more readable.

I could make it so when clicking on the red "Page notice" link the user immediately sees an explanation what it is for and how to request its creation, similar to the message users see if they then click "Start the xxx page". To see what message I mean, if you are not an admin (or logged out), do the two clicks to try to create the page notice for this page: Page notice.

But really, this is all very hypothetical. Since as I explained above, only about 1 out of 1,000,000 users see those links. And perhaps only 1 out of 10 of them get curious about the "Page notice" link. That's just 1 out 10,000,000 users. We shouldn't jump through hoops for that... If they wonder what the "Page notice" link means they can do the two clicks, or ask at the Help desk or so.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bug 17662 - Customizable default preload/editintro in add-new-section link for Talk page

T19662 has been marked as resolved and applied in the latest release.[1] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Weird feature. The new-section preloads will be unusable here on Wikipedia I'm afraid, adding parser functions into a message shown on every page will be a no-go. The edit intro is possible since any parser function evaluations can be delayed until the link is actually clicked. I can't think of a situation though where you want to show a notice on the new-section mask, but not on normal editing. Amalthea 15:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Edit Notice Count

Hi guys, sorry but I was discussing this at the help desk earlier but I wasn't able to find a solution. I'm having a problem with the edit notice appearing twice. What is going on? Is it a bug or is it just me? Anyone else notice? --A3RO (mailbox) 16:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What browser are you using? This issue has come up before at Wikipedia talk:Help desk#Edit notice - a bit of boldness by me.... ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You now see duplicated editnotices on every page? Such as Arthur Rudolph? You are adding the notice to User:A3RO/Editnotice and User talk:A3RO/Editnotice— if you blank those, do you see the editnotice twice at Arthur Rudolph? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This issue seems to be related to wikEd; when I turn it on, a second editnotice immediately appears. Intelligentsium 17:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha! I see it as well with wikEd enabled. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Cacycle/wikEd#Would you consider making the duplicate edit notices optional? This stopped the duplication for me when wikEd is enabled. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I added var wikEdDoCloneWarnings = false; to my monobook but it still appears maybe it only works for IE, I am using Firefox. I took wikEd off and the double notices are not there, just one. Looks like I'll have to deal without wikEd until this bug is fixed. --A3RO (mailbox) 20:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Worked for me with FF. You did bypass the cache? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Also worked for me in Firefox (after bypassing the cache at monobook.js). I assume you are using the MonoBook skin. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

{{preload}}

I stumbled across this template, which is in use on only a handful of pages (including this one). It has no documentation. Could someone write documentation?

I will also notify the creator, user:Mayalld. The creator has been inactive for eight months.

Thanks. Agradman (while the sky falls, A Concerned Chicken (talk)) 18:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

When they are no longer needed on a page....

...do we just remove the content and leave it blank or do we delete the subpage? SGGH ^ping! 21:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

G6 delete it, preferably, otherwise the editnotice system is confused and will display a bluelink to the empty notice for all readers. Most transparent way probably is to summarize the intent of the previous notice in the deletion log. Amalthea 23:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User and User talk notices

Just wondering if it would be worth updating {{Editnotice load}} so that notices for User and User talk subpages and group notices are stored in the user namespace rather than in the template namespace as currently happens ([2] & [3]) -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Editnotice/Archive 4#Allow users to create editnotices for all pages in their userspace and still has my support. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What the . . . ?

Why would any body want one of these? What good are they? Sorry, but I am a little dim today and can't quite get it. Your in puzzlement (and really your friend), GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

To point out peculiarities of some article to editors. Just look at the many existing editnotices to see what they are used for. Or try . Amalthea 09:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So if I write an article, and I want to point out the peculiarities in that article — or if I want to call attention to something another editor should or should not do to that article — then I can develop an entirely new editbox (or use one that has already been developed by somebody else)? Is that it? With the light perhaps dawning, I am your svt., GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in principle. It is typically related to problematic edits to the article, mostly edits that already had to be reverted several times. It's not the place for a To-Do-list, for example.
Editors very often use that on their own talk pages, to lay out some ground rules, or list or link to frequently answered questions. See for example or . Amalthea 09:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For example, I created editnotice FAQs for or that show when editing. These FAQs include information that clarify issues resolved from previous edit wars. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, all this is really cool, and I don't know why it has taken me four years or more to find out about this function. Maybe it should be more widely bruited about, but then may that would invite overuse. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit section links in edit notices

What is the best way to prevent links to edit sections in edit notices (e.g. in Wikipedia:Article wizard/Wizard-New edit instructions A? Usually the reader cannot edit these, so the links are not helpful. We are getting a lot of useless {{editprotected}} requests on Wikipedia talk:Article wizard/Wizard-New edit instructions A because of this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Add the magic word __NOEDITSECTION__ to the page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Validation

Would it be possible to add a W3C validation link to {{Editnotices/Group/Template:Editnotices}} or similar that would allow an editor to check the page? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Trying this the old-fashioned way

My eyes crossed when I tried to figure out the arcane directions for requesting help. Can someone just do this for me? I want the contents of Template:Editnotices/Page/Rudeness to appear at Breast cancer awareness.

Actually, what I really want is a template that I could place in the article to make this notice appear, without requiring admin intervention, but just creating the one today will be sufficient.

Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Created at Template:Editnotices/Page/Breast cancer awareness. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Double notices

Is there any way to only have them display once? For example, if I edit my own userpage (which is semi-protected), I get the SP notice at the top, a toolbar, then the SP notice again right below the toolbar. It's really annoying. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you using WikEd? It does it on purpose to make the bottom notice line up with the top of your window (otherwise WikEd would pull the browser down past the edit notices.) There's an option to disable the behavior: add

var wikEdDoCloneWarnings = false;

to your skin's .js file.

—Soap— 21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Does that remove the first or the second notice? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably the second one, since the first notice is the "real" one, but I have never tried it out (even though I was the one who submitted the request for the "no cloning" feature since I found it annoying too). —Soap— 22:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It removes the second one. I wonder if WikiEd could somehow add <div class="OriginalNotice"> (or similar) to the first notice, and <div class="ClonedNotice"> to the second one... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There is still something weird, even with that setting. When WikiEd is enabled, Enable enhanced editing toolbar is disabled and an editnotice exists, then the standard toolbar is moved above the editnotice and the WikiEd toolbar is below the editnotice. Checked on FireFox with Vector and Monobook. Test by editing any section of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion notification

A discussion that may result in the expansion of the editnotice system to allow for overriding of page protection notices (from MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext) has been started at WP:VPR#Add the ability to override the default "this page is protected" edit notice. Please comment there. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 15:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1.19 beta

From the release notes: "Per page edit-notices now work in namespaces without subpages enabled." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Without Domas approving the restoration of the feature (or has he? I see nothing on r48276 or on r97686 or on T17102), I wouldn't want to count on it not being disabled again. Anomie⚔ 00:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

If you visit any CFD page (i.e., Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or subpages) and open the edit window, the edit notices are bunched together in three links: Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (this one varies for the subpages) and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions. What's causing this issue? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Vector skin doesn't display MediaWiki:tagline under the title when editing, which means there isn't the space the link is intended to be placed in. Any non-article that uses coordinates will have the same issue, BTW. For example, edit and preview Template:Coord and note how the coordinates overlap the first documentation message box. Anomie⚔ 01:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a known workaround, or is it a MediaWiki issue that's up to the devs to fix. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt the devs will do anything about it. I don't know of any workaround either, besides rearranging the edit notice entirely to not float the instructions link at all. Anomie⚔ 05:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, then, and thank you for explaining this. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Simple question: Why are notices in the article and template spaces protected? -Rrius (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

They're not protected in the normal sense - if admins go to one of these pages, they see a "protect" tab (as with an unprotected page), not a "change protection" tab (as seen on a semi-protected or fully-protected page), see WP:NAS/P. Clicking on the "protect" tab shows that the current protection level is "Edit: Allow all users; Move: Allow all users", which implies an unprotected page.

But it is true that editnotice pages may only be created and edited by admins, with the exception that an editnotice in User: or User talk: space may also be created or edited by the user in whose space it lies. This suggests to me that the apparent "protection" is actually set up through the MediaWiki software. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I meant protection in the broader sense. It used to be possible for normal editors to edit these, but somehow we are no longer trustworthy enough to contribute. I want to know why and why this change took place without a noticeable request for views. Someone with this on their watchlist must know. -Rrius (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been that way for years. I wasn't aware that non-admins had ever been able to edit them (and I have no strong opinion on whether they should be able to). To answer the technical question, the restriction is imposed via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist—admins and account creators have the ability to override the blacklist (account creators because the blacklist also applies to usernames, and they need to be able to override false positives), which is how they're able to create/edit editnotices. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I was able to edit one a few years ago, but I'm willing to be proved wrong. In any event, that answers the how, but not the why, which is the only question I really want answered. Exactly what damage is it feared that an editor, especially an Autoconfirmed editor, will do? Having the restriction makes the text of the edit notice the domain of whatever few administrators and account creators who happen to follow the page or be involved with the WikiProject it belongs to. -Rrius (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I was only answering the "how". :) I don't know the answer to "why", and I don't know how the decision was made or by whom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't meant as a swipe or anything. I've just noticed that if someone answers a question, others will assume the thread is over, so I feel the need to respond to an answer that isn't an answer to my question or only answers part with a restatement of the question. -Rrius (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Rrius: I checked your contribs. You edited User talk:Rrius/Editnotice; as noted, userspace editnotices are not protected.

The reason for the protection of most editnotices is that it would be easy to vandalize an editnotice in such a way that it would prevent the majority of editors from being able to edit the article, most editors wouldn't know where to begin to revert editnotice vandalism, and the editnotices themselves are watched by very few editors (likely no editors if the vandal created the notice). See Wikipedia talk:Editnotice/Archive 1 for the early discussions of the editnotice system we have here. Anomie⚔ 02:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, that isn't what I was thinking of. I think there was a template that was transcluded to an edit notice in the WP edit space. Anyway, the discussion you link to does not seem to be about what you think it is. Rather, it is about editnotices in the User space, and was specifically concerned with newbie users being confronted by vandalism through edit notices in their own userspace. The additional problems you raise, that people wouldn't know how to edit the notice and no one watches editnotices, are not persuasive. Vandals tend to be low-knowledge editors, so they are the least likely to know how to change them, or even notice them. Vandals tend to hit the "Edit" link with a particular purpose in mind, so they aren't likely to even read the notice. What's more, to the extent there really is a problem, it could be fixed by forcing a link to appear somewhere on the Edit screen. As for no one watching editnotices, so what? People who actually look at them will notice and do something, those who don't won't notice the vandalism, so won't be affected by it. The only real problem is blanking, but a bot could deal with that (and vandalism, really); a bot programmed targeted to /editnotice changes wouldn't exactly be overworked. I really think the current position is an overreaction to problem that is unlikely to be serious or frequent. -Rrius (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think all vandals are low-knowledge editors, you are sadly mistaken. And blanking of an edit notice is far from the only (or the most serious) problem that could be caused by editnotice vandalism, but it's better not to elaborate on that. Anomie⚔ 14:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I said vandals tend to be low-knowledge editors. That explicitly tells you I am aware that not all are such. Had it been otherwise, I would have said "all" or left out the modifier altogether. As for blanking, I never said that was the only problem. I said that it was the only kind that mattered. People who notice editnotices will fix blatant vandalism, and people who don't won't be affected by the vandalism. As a result, blanking is the only real problem since it would likely disguise the fact that vandalism has occurred. As for beans, I'm willing to wager that we could talk about how to vandalize editnotices on this page till we're blue in the face without a single vandal noticing. -Rrius (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to unprotect editnotices for some pages. Another editor and I were looking at using an editnotice for WP:OTD to help with updating lists and it would be beneficial for at least auto confirmed users to be able to edit it. AIRcorn (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Place {{editprotected}} on the talkpage and the changes. I will do it. mabdul 08:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's also possible to transclude an unprotected page from the editnotice, if necessary. Anomie⚔ 10:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. The aim was however to use it as a staging area (see Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 20), so the ideal situation would be to have it unprotected. A transcluded unprotected page could do the trick or it might be simpler to just transclude a normal page. AIRcorn (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not possible to "unprotect" editnotice pages, because they're not protected in the normal sense (see my post of 10 February 2012 above). It would mean a change to the way that the MediaWiki software operates. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice shows twice. Bug or synt. error ?

Hi, I put an edit notice on my user page (not that I needed any). It appears - twice. I had already seen that elsewhere. Someone knows what is wrong in such cases ? Thanks.--Caleb Crabb 15:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it the same issue discussed in Wikipedia talk:Editnotice/Archive 5#Re: Edit Notice Count? Anomie⚔ 16:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Understood. It’s a WikiEd effect and it’s on purpose. Thanks a lot for looking in the Archives for me (I had but only in the Templates talk). Oh and by the way, your bot does amazing work. Best.--Caleb Crabb 23:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How does one ask for an editnotice to be placed?

If you peruse the history of the DAB page Article, you will see that there are numerous reverts originating in people attempting to create an article there. IMHO, this page would benefit from an editnotice directing people to WP:AfC. Is this the proper place to make that request? If not, could someone please point me in the right direction? Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend that people just use {{editprotected}}. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I always ask the same admin. We really ought to provide a description of how to ask, even if it's just to say "use the editprotected template" (on which talk page?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editnotice#Creating editnotices under "To request the creation of an editnotice if you are not an admin". ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)