Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

AN3 report

Resolved

Why does Twinkle not allow an AN3 report unless it finds three edits to the same article within the last 24 hours? I had started an edit warring report last night using twinkle and there were only two reverts within the last 24 hours, and selected both. I explained in the comment section why it was edit warring and hit submit. Twinkle came back and said that I had to select at least three reverts before it would allow me to submit the report. Edit warring is more than just the three revert rule. GB fan 12:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can see this as an issue in cases where there has been a 1RR sanction set in place. Technical 13 (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@AzaToth: ? — This, that and the other (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That restriction could be alleviated a bit perhaps; The intention was to prevent people making reports where the letter of the rules hadn't been breached. _→AzaToth 21:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@GB fan: Now, when you select fewer than three edits, you are simply asked to confirm whether this is what you meant to do, instead of being prevented from going ahead with the report. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Problem after saving Twinkle preferences

On Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences under the "Show rollback links on these pages:" section I'm unchecking the box marked "Contributions pages of other users", however, when I went to someones contributions page the Rollback links were still there. And every time I reload the twinkle preference page the box is marked, even if I uncheck the box, save my preferences and reload the page. Clearing my cache hasn't helped at all either. Is this a bug or am I doing something else wrong? Thanks. —  dainomite   23:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not seeing the "real" rollback link and getting it confused with Twinkle's rollback links? (At least on some pages, for others, it doesn't show them.) It's always there, whether or not you have Twinkle's enabled or not. (If you don't want it to be, you need to use custom JavaScript or CSS to hide it). Jackmcbarn (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have the rollback link hidden on my css and js pages but it still shows. —  dainomite   12:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

@Dainomite: Did you bypassclear your cache completely as outlined in WP:BYPASS? — This, that and the other (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Sorry, should've posted here sooner. It's fixed now, and yep yep, I wasn't completely clearing my cache per BYPASS. I was following the top of my twinkleoptions.js that said "Note: After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes ... Google Chrome and Safari users can just click the Reload button." Thank you for checking up on this though, I appreciate it. —  dainomite   00:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

3rr feature request

The 3rr feature is great, but it would be nice to be able to report more complicated types of edit warring. For example edit warring by IPs or sockpuppets using multiple accounts, or "slow" edit wars of longer than 24 hours. Basically having an option to un-filter the article history list would work, letting you select diffs from multiple users, and for longer than 24 hours. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I second this - specifically, I would like the ability to select edits outside of the very narrow range that is currently possible. Can it be implemented sometime soon? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Changes to anonymous user warning templates

Resolved

I have made some changes to Template:Welcome-anon-unconstructive and Template:Welcome-anon-constructive.

I moved the former to its current name per discussion at WP:TFD that occurred years ago but was not implemented for some reason. Since the former template now applies to any type of unconstructive edit, not just vandalism, I decided to change the text of the latter template per WP:BOLD to remove the mention of vandalism as well.

In other words, both templates now apply to edits other than vandalism, and I would ask that Twinkle be updated to reflect this. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So essentially you simply want references to "welcome-anon-vandal" changed to "welcome-anon-unconstructive"? That is easily done. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No, there's quite a bit more to change - specifically, the descriptions for both templates should be updated as well. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I put in "for anonymous users who have vandalized or made unhelpful edits" for -unconstructive. What is wrong with "for anonymous users who fight vandalism and edit constructively" for -constructive? — This, that and the other (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What if I want to template a user who has made constructive edits other than reverting vandalism? To keep it consistent with the other one, I suggest simply changing "and" to "or". Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you wanted to do that, you would click the Preview button to see what the template actually says :) The descriptions are only there as general guidelines, not to be taken literally. But I take your point, I'll make that change as well. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes, but I'm not seeing them on my end... how soon are they actually going to be implemented? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

As soon as an admin (usually AzaToth or Amalthea) synchronises the gadget on-wiki. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I see the changes now, but not the later one - is this expected? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well in one sense yes, because I forgot to commit the second change. It will appear on wiki in good time. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Uw-test1

I was wondering, regarding {{Uw-test1}} and other related user warning templates, can the link to the article (the Physical Graffiti link here) be targeted to the diff of the edit in question ? Mlpearc (powwow) 16:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Templates

Lately, I've been editing templates so that the signature comes automatically. I just wanted to know if you guys would mind editing Twinkle so that the signature does not come when somebody AfDs, PRODs, or CSDs an article. If not, I would happily revert myself. buffbills7701 21:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the reason for your changes? It's easy enough to change Twinkle to suit, but I can't see any good reason for your change... you're going to needlessly raise the ire of editors who use these templates manually... — This, that and the other (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This is meant for users who use it manually. New users who forget to add the signature no longer have to, because the template will do it for them. buffbills7701 20:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If a template includes the signature, it is no longer easy to follow the standard text with a hand-written addition. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not only a question of Twinkle. There are very many editors who are used to using one or more of these templates, and changing the way that the templates work is likely to create large numbers of uses of the templates have effects different from those intended. The most obvious problem is that people will add signatures manually, resulting in two signatures. Even if there is a good case for believing it would have been better had these templates originally been designed to automatically add signatures, it is very doubtful whether it is wise to change them now that they are so well established, and it is certainly not a good idea to make changes with such widespread effects without widely advertised discussion. In addition, the extra effort involved in typing ~~~~ is so slight, that the gain achieved by this change is probably not worth the trouble that it would entail. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Is SineBot (talk · contribs) not signing posts with uses of these templates for some reason? I'm not sure I follow the need for excessive redundancy to add this to the template itself (despite whether or not it should have been there in the first place). Technical 13 (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Double signing

I recently PRODed a page. However, when Twinkle posted a notification to the creator's talk page, it signed twice. George8211 ^{conversations} 18:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This might be related: Twinkle seems to add a period at the end of WP:AIV reports (and since there's no indication that this will happen beforehand, it's quite easy to end up with two periods). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The double signing is because Buffbills7701 (talk · contribs) has made a breaking change to {{Proposed deletion notify}}. See #Templates, above. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Buffbills7701 has made a large number of similar changes to numerous templates. Many of them have been reverted to avoid this kind of problem, but there are so many of them that some, such as this one, have been missed. I have reverted the change to this template, but who knows whether there are still more? It's a good example of why nobody should make extensive changes to templates without discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Addition request

{{Uw-consensus1}}, this would be a useful addition to MediaWiki:Gadget-twinklewarn.js. Mlpearc (powwow) 16:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have some old text files containing plans for Twinkle warnings; I'll go and see what was said about this one. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I second the addition of this - and request any other user warning templates not yet included. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Some little-used warnings are not included in Twinkle, to avoid clutter in the lists. For example, uw-redirectX, uw-icsX and uw-taxonomyX are examples of uw- series that are deliberately excluded from Twinkle. If you wish to use these templates via Twinkle, you can add each member of the series to your custom warnings at WP:TWPREFS.

As for uw-consensus, I have looked, and it doesn't appear on my list at all. I must have missed it because it is not listed at WP:UWT. How common is the issue it relates to? — This, that and the other (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need all of the {{user warning templates}}. This one, I've had instances which I could placed it. Mlpearc (powwow) 01:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect edit summary

Resolved

The edit summary for the WP:BITE user warning template produces a WP:REDLINK. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Twinkle is not including the namespace prefix. That is because Twinkle actually asks you for a "linked article" - although the template accepts other inputs, Twinkle does not expect these. Would it be correct to add the "User talk:" namespace prefix to the edit summary link if no namespace was already given? — This, that and the other (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No, Twinkle does not ask for a linked article for that specific template. In fact, for that template, Twinkle is extremely specific about what to enter - and then turns around and uses the input incorrectly. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Link is now suppressed, thanks for the report. Amalthea 09:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Watching sockpuppetry reports

It may just be my preferences, but I cant find where to set it of so. When I create a Sockpuppetry report I'd like TW to set it so that I am watching it. Currently that seems to need a manual intervention. Or, of course, I have missed where I ought to set it! Fiddle Faddle 10:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I just opened up the code for our ARV module, and did a text search for the word "watch" - it doesn't even appear... This option is clearly something we should have. In fact, I think it should even be enabled by default. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Default for created AfD pages also seems to be to follow page preferences, may make sense to change that as well. Amalthea 14:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Amalthea: Currently we have two styles of watchlist preferences: the boolean true/false, and three-state yes/no/default (where "default" means "follow user's MediaWiki preferences"). I seem to recall that one of these is a legacy style, and the other one is supposed to be used for new prefs. Can you remember which is which? Or do we need to decide this now? — This, that and the other (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Hmm, did Echo have issues? Your ping didn't get through, I have no 'mentions' since October 19, but I don't see anything at WP:VPT.
The true/false settings are the legacy ones, back in 2009 the API didn't offer true 'default'/'nochange' options (bugzilla:19090).
Amalthea 09:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That was my fault: I initially used the {{@}} template, so went back to fix it, but Echo didn't recognise my second edit as a mention because it wasn't signed. Sorry about that!

OK, that makes sense. Eventually we should figure out some way of migrating the legacy boolean watchlist prefs to the new style, although it's hardly a priority. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I never considered that Echo would need more than an added user link to accept it a mention, but makes sense of course. :) Amalthea 19:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Rollback Error

There was two edits made by this IP address, 2A02:FE0:C510:4111:247E:C0B2:55F6:79B6, on a article that I was watching, when I click rollback vandal, it only reverted one edit when it was supposed to revert two. This has happened several times, and I'm starting to get curious of why is it doing that. Blurred Lines 21:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's because of bugzilla:44161, for which I submitted a MediaWiki patch not too long ago. However, patches can take months to even receive any comments or feedback, let alone accepted, so don't hold your breath... — This, that and the other (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Rolling back edits

Picture 4 edits in a row made by an editor, one of which needs to be undone, the rest of which are valid.

I appreciate that, if the invalid edit is not the final edit then there can be issues here, but picture this:

• Edit 1 - wonderful
• Edit 2 - useful
• Edit 3 - lengthy, complex, glorious and in so many places in the article that it addressed a huge set of problems
• Edit 4 - out of character, introduced uncited fact which alters the entire character of the article and should be removed pending discussion (etc)

Using TW to do an AGF rollback it tells me that [editor] has made 4 edits in a row, do I want to nuke them all. I do not. Just number 4.

What I'd like to be able to do is to say, "No, but the last edit must go!" and have that taken care of.

In a different scenario I'd like the last 3 removed, but not number 1, etc.

I envisage that this is technically possible, and I'd like to request it as an enhancement, though I am sure it is not going to end up anywhere near the top of the list. Fiddle Faddle 15:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• In that instance Timtrent, click on the "restore this version" link for the third edit instead of rollback OR use the "undo" function for the edit you want to get rid of. Rollback by default rolls back all edits by previous user (Twinkle version does some fancy bot whitelist checking which real rollback does not). Happy reverting! Technical 13 (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• That I know. :) IT doe snot prevent me from asking for an enhancement, though. Fiddle Faddle 15:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Can't warn users

I get this message when I try to warn vandals: "User talk page modification: Failed to save edit: error "Internal Server Error" occurred while contacting the API." --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Things like that are usually a short-term issue. I just did a test at User talk:Sandbox for user warnings and it worked fine. You can either wait it out or "manually" warn them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

RFD

Resolved

Lately when i Try to send a redirect to RFD I get an error which states "failed to find target spot for the discussion", and tough the RFD template shows up on the redirect, the redirect doesn't show up on RFD. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This edit to {{RfD subpage starter}} may fix it. I'll also fix the daily pages that are already broken. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It's working now. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Watching salted pages

When I use Twinkle to salt pages, they get added to my watchlist. Is there a way to disable this? I couldn't find the option in the preferences panel, perhaps because most users can't salt anyway. --BDD (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle's protection module doesn't tell the MediaWiki software anything about watching pages. Instead, it seems that the API is using the value of your MediaWiki preference "Add pages I create and files I upload to my watchlist" to decide whether to watch pages you salt, which seems like a bug to me.

However, we can work around this; I can't see why anyone would want to watch pages they salt (seeing as no-one can edit them!) so I'm inclined to just disable it altogether without providing yet another preference. Does that sounds reasonable? — This, that and the other (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The page does not exist so it uses the 'watchcreations' user option. Not quite right, I agree.
Not quite sure about forcing the 'nochange' option though: If you salt a page, you may want to know if protection is lifted, for which you need it on the watchlist. And what about unsalting?
Amalthea 13:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

See bugzilla:56766.

Hmm, good points. It makes me wonder if we should just have a preference to allow admins to watch pages they protect, regardless of existence? Or two preferences, one for salting and another for existing pages? — This, that and the other (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. All things being equal, I would prefer TW not add to my watchlist except when I've specifically said to do so. When I create an XfD or merge proposal, I'm going to want to watch it, but there's nothing else I do with Twinkle that makes me automatically want to watch. I'm still not sure whether this is really Twinkle's doing or the bug's. --BDD (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

BDD, if you have 'Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist' checked in your user preferences then even after the MediaWiki bugfix is deployed salted pages will still be added to your watchlist. That's not Twinkle's doing, MediaWiki is adding it implicitly due to the user preference setting, same as if you manually used the 'protect' tab to salt it; in a way you have explicitly said so.
If you don't have that user preference set, only the 'Add pages I create' one, then once the MediaWiki fix is deployed salting pages via Twinkle will no longer affect your watchlist.
Remaining question is whether Twinkle should allow to modify the standard behavior here, either by preventing a watchlist change in general or by exposing new Twinkle preferences.
Amalthea 01:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Consistency of user input

Sometimes, when using Twinkle to tag things, or to offer to delete them, a dialogue box or other instrument opens when one opts for the element from the list. At other times the dialogue box (etc) opens after submission. I imagine this is because of several tools having been grafted together into the TW environment.

From the user's perspective I have a preference for any additional input being made prior to submission, the more so since pressing cancel on the act post submission does not necessarily have an obvious effect.

So my plea is for consistency. I don't make this plea as a matter of urgency, just as a matter of minor importance. And I'm sure, as a plea for neatness, it will appeal to the chaps and chapesses who produce and maintain nTW with love. Fiddle Faddle 13:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I completely agree with you. Some time ago, inspired by the work of Siddhartha Ghai on a project known as TWG, the tag module was changed so that popups are no longer shown to the user when they click Submit - instead, input is solicited through "subgroups" (input fields that dynamically appear when necessary). The only tag still using popups is {{expand language}} - I'm not too sure of the reason for this. The plan is to migrate the CSD module to a similar functionality, and after that I think we would mostly be popup-less (except for revert/rollback, which is special). How does that sound to you? — This, that and the other (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It sounds excellent. I simply wanted to make sure it was on your radar screen. Often these things can be fiddled with when fixing something else, but one has to know they need fixing :) As I said, not at all urgent, just important for good consistency, the more so when pressing cancel sometimes cancels the thing in the popup and sometimes (not sure?) cancels the operation! Fiddle Faddle 08:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I can see the work bearing fruit. Please will you look at CSD for an article previously deleted by a deletion discussion? It needs to default to the prior deletion discussion, only getting human input if it has a different name, please. I hope it's a tiny coding issue. The pverall improvement is lovely. Niggles there will always be! Fiddle Faddle 11:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@Timtrent: For AFD and MFD, in most cases, you can just leave the parameter blank and {{db-repost}} and/or {{db-xfd}} will automatically link to the deletion discussion. For cases other than those, I fear I lack the skill to make Twinkle quite that intelligent! — This, that and the other (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It just failed to pick up the prior the only time I tried the CSD for a previously deleted article and I left the field blank. Since then I've filled the field in. I'll try leaving it blank next time and let you know the outcome. It sounds like a weird template issue, maybe. Genuinely unsure on this one Fiddle Faddle 11:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I see now that the default (parameterless) invocation of db-repost only provides small links to deletion discussions, in the footer of the template. I'll see if I can improve this. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem in Monobook skin

When I use the Monobook skin, two things happen to Twinkle. Firstly, all the buttons normally accessed from the drop-down menu (CSD, XfD, RPP etc.) appear next to the "edit" button. Secondly, the Twinkle interface has a huge blank space in the left of the box. George8211 ^{conversations} 20:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The first thing you describe (tab layout) is by design: that is the way Twinkle always used to work before Vector was introduced a few years ago. When you switch to Monobook you are stepping back in time :) As for the second issue, which browser are you using? — This, that and the other (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Firefox 24. I've just upgraded to v25, but haven't seen if the problem's been fixed. (Right now I'm sitting with my tablet. And Firefox for Android 24. Yet to be upgraded. (The problem's still here in FF Android 24.)) George8211 ^{conversations} 20:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Update: the problem's still here in FF 25. George8211 ^{conversations} 17:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

How odd. Could you please post a screenshot? — This, that and the other (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

@George8211: I think I've tracked down the source of the problem. Could you try visiting a Wikipedia page, pressing Shift+F7, clicking "New" in the top-left corner of the panel that appears, and pasting in the following code:

body.skin-monobook .morebits-dialog .ui-dialog-titlebar { line-height: 1em !important; }

Then invoke Twinkle and see if the problem goes away. If so, let me know and I'll add this code to Twinkle's default style sheet. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: It works! Oh, and another thing: sorry for replying very late, and not posting the screenshot. George8211^{what did I break now?} 22:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to fix this?

I tagged a page for a history merge with Twinkle and left the option to notify the creator enabled. However, the page had been a redirect prior to having the content from elsewhere pasted on top, and so Twinkle notified the creator of the redirect instead. Given the notification template used, this could be very confusing for the user being notified in such a situation. I'm just wondering if it is possible to fix this somehow. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This is confusing and not a error dedicated to Twinkle, I have received CSD/FFD notification and such from Commons after moving files from here to there via CommonsHelper. Sorry for the edit summary, I meant "yep" it's an issue, not "yep" it can be fixed :P.Mlpearc (powwow) 00:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Functionality requests

To try to keep myself from making a mess of this page again, I've made this section for my recent major functionality requests for Twinkle. At this time, this includes WP:DRV, WP:RM, WP:MERGE, and WP:SPLIT. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are you re-formatting these discussions? If anyone had anything more to add, they could have done so in the original sections; otherwise they would have been archived, which is exactly what should happen to inactive discussions. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't re-formatted the discussions at all - only collapsed them because of my own poor wording choices in them. I've also put them into one section because I don't think they should be separate. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Why is there still no such functionality despite it having been requested before? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Calm down, we're all volunteers around here. My personal objection to writing a DRV module is that it would be very rarely used, hence not worth the time spent coding it. Can you link to the previous requests? Was there any discussion? — This, that and the other (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC) The very fact that there is WP:XFD functionality but none for WP:DRV screams deletionist bias to me - that's already one reason for implementing it. No, there wasn't any actual discussion - it was only mentioned once in the archives of this talk page as far as I can see. By the way, mind commenting in the WP:3RR discussion above? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC) I see the prior request now: Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 30#DRV for Twinkle?. I don't see the parallel between DRV and inclusionism - DRV is for reviewing disputed closures of deletion discussions and disputed applications of WP:CSD, among other things; it is not somehow a way for inclusionists to ask for articles to be kept, so I don't really buy the bias argument. Let me just say that I personally have no plans to add a DRV module to Twinkle; if someone else wants to write a Twinkle module for this purpose, we would welcome it. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC) I/We have a script for closing DRVs and I'm confident that myself and the other regular closers of DRVs are capable to manually doing anything additional. Since DRV would never agree to a merge anyway without referring a discussion back to AFD I can't say I feel any lack of functionality. Now, if you could do something on RMs that would be fabby. Spartaz Humbug! 19:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Besides the WP:DRV functionality mentioned above, it would be very useful to include WP:MERGE, WP:SPLIT, and especially WP:RM (and the corresponding WP:MRV if WP:DRV is implemented) options. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC) For a start, merge tagging functionality is already provided via the "Tag" module. I suppose the splitting templates could also be added to that module. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC) I'm particularly referring to controversial mergers. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Uh... in what way? I mean, what exactly would you expect Twinkle to do with controversial merges? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC) I would expect it to start a discussion, for one thing. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC) I suggest you go and try out the existing functionality; you may be pleasantly surprised at what it can do. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Even if it can handle WP:MERGE, the rest still remain. (Also, you still haven't commented in the WP:3RR discussion above as I requested.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC) @ Dogmaticeclectic keep in mind this is a place for asking questions, making suggestions and having discussions between users of Twinkle and the Developers who maintain it, your statement implies you hold This, that solely responsible of handling all queries, this not how it works, any user can answer or decline any post. Mlpearc (powwow) 01:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Nobody but me has responded in that section at all! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC) I've already asked you to calm down, Dogmaticeclectic. I am very busy at the moment and have no time to be making changes to Twinkle. I have so much off-wiki stuff to do that I probably shouldn't even be responding on this page... — This, that and the other (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Just to confirm we don't need a DRV tool. Its working fine as it is and DRvs should be closed by an admin familiar with DRV anyway. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • User:Spartaz, I'm not requesting a DRV closure tool - I'm requesting a DRV nomination tool. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah, well its good that we have finally teased the nature of your DRV request from you. Is this worth it for the average of one DRV that we see at the moment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
      • User:Spartaz, I think I could probably name a bunch of Twinkle functions that are used less than DRV would likely be (just think of all those templates!). In my view, the addition of any functionality that is inherently useful to Twinkle should be encouraged regardless of how often it is likely to be used - of course, the feasibility of adding it is another matter, but I don't think DRV would be any more difficult to add than, say, XFD. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hi, I am here because I was having trouble tagging a page for a conflict of interest--specifically, whenever I click on the "add tags" button and then click on neutrality, the box goes blank where it should display the option to check "advertisement", "Conflict of interest" and so on. Help regarding this problem would be greatly appreciated. Jinkinson talk to me 15:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@Jinkinson: An "Add tags" button ... that doesn't sound like a Twinkle function. Amalthea 17:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this is obviously a Page Curation problem, not a Twinkle problem. Never mind. Jinkinson talk to me 17:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:AIV: Double full stops

I cannot add a full stop to the end of my AIV reports, because when I do two full stops appear... click. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 07:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously this needs to be fixed, but in the meantime, don't end your AIV reports with a full stop, as Twinkle adds one unconditionally. — This, that and the other (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I would think this is simple fix... -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 23:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It sure is simple; thanks for reminding me! I have been very busy these past few weeks and only now have time to look at these reports. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It's only simple if the auto full stop is removed entirely. How about sentences ending with other punctuation, or not needing any? Amalthea 17:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't considered ! ? etc. Maybe we should re-use the regex from twinklefluff: /[.?!;]$/ — This, that and the other (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Request adding uw-redlink to Twinkle's list of single issue notices

Resolved

I have (re)created a user warning template {{uw-redlink}}. Is this the proper place to request it be added to Twinkle's list of single issue notices? If so, the explanatory text should be something like Indiscriminate removal of redlinks. —EncMstr (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Support, this would be useful. Mlpearc (powwow) 02:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it'll be done when I have time. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, thank you. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 01:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This was done a couple of days ago. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

RPP module change request.

Currently, there is no option in the RPP module to lower protection from full to TE or semi. I'm not sure which section such a request should go under or if there should be a new section. Currently, people can either request protection as the new level, which sometimes gets misunderstood as the user not realizing the page already has a higher level and gets denied or, it goes under unprotection which sometimes gets misunderstood as a request to completely unprotect the page/template and gets denied. There needs to be a clearer option for this. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I would think that this would be handled via the existing interface, with a notice being provided to inform the user that the page is protected (similar to what admins get - add "sysop" to wgUserGroups and try it out). Language like "Reduction of indefinite full protection to temporary semi-protection" could be used on RPP (where the first part is automatic based on the page's current edit protection, and the second part is chosen by the user). How does that sound? — This, that and the other (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a new section should be added to WP:RFPP... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been waiting a few weeks now to see if something might happen there, and it's not. So, do we need to have some kind of proposal or RfC or something to add the section to WP:RFPP or can we just be WP:BOLD and get it done? Technical 13 (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Technical 13, how about bringing it up at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Technical 13 (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

{{db-f7|reason=xyz}}

{{db-f7}} has a "reason" parameter, but Twinkle doesn't allow me to use it. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, that needs to be added. For the record, normally the DI module's "disputed fair use rationale" (which allows input of a reason) or "replaceable fair use" should be used for F7 deletions, but I figure you already know that :) — This, that and the other (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. However, sometimes people provide poor sources, so the "reason" parameter may for example be needed to show that an unfree image comes from a commercial source. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

When adding {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, Twinkle didn't prompt me for an explanation to put after the concern parameter. —rybec 02:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Huh? That template only accepts one parameter, namely |concern=. That is where you would put your explanation, I would think. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how else to put this. The script does nothing with the "concern" parameter. It would be nice if the script had a dialog asking for the reason to go with the "concern" parameter, or if it would even add the "concern" parameter at all. Maybe these diffs will illustrate what I'm trying to convey with my limited English: [1] (scripted) [2] (scripted) [3] (scripted) [4] (manual) [5] (manual) —rybec 04:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. However, it works fine for me... (Just to clarify the language issue: the term "parameter" refers to the entire string concern=not actually a picture of John Smith - when you said "after" I thought you were referring to an additional parameter that comes after the concern parameter.) — This, that and the other (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried it on File:Image page sandbox.png and had the same problem. As before, I opened Twinkle's DI menu, chose "Disputed fair use rationale (CSD F7)" from the dialog, and clicked on the "Submit Query" button. —rybec 23:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You should try typing in your concern (you may need to scroll down) before clicking Submit :) — This, that and the other (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I see now that the scroll bar changes when I select "Disputed fair use rationale...." That's rather subtle. If it isn't possible to make a separate dialog asking for the concern, how about asking for the concern at the top of the dialog rather than the bottom, so it can be seen more easily? —rybec 07:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I could increase the height of the dialog; how does that sound? — This, that and the other (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Your initial request has now been fulfilled :) — This, that and the other (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This, that and the other: Increasing the height sounds like it would be helpful. —rybec 09:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you think so - this was done earlier in the week :) — This, that and the other (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Template-protection

I think this new-ish level of protection needs to be implemented in Twinkle's PP and P-Batch functions; at the present time, it only allows the use of no protection, FPP and SPP. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• See also #RPP module change request. above. Technical 13 (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not a coder but, I'm sure this is already on the table. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Templateeditor protection should be working in PP (although it is not available outside the Template and Module namespaces - I don't see why it would ever be needed in any other namespaces). I forgot about P-batch, I'll take a look at that right now. Thanks, — This, that and the other (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand TPP (is this what we're gonna call it?) only being available in the PP module on the relevant namespaces, but P-batch is a more complex case because list of pages are typically in the User or Project namespaces and I'm not sure Twinkle has a way to check the list of pages only really contains Template or Module pages... then again, some of it comes down to the user of the batch-protection knowing what they're doing and being accountable for every action, I guess. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Template protection in p-batch isn't far away, and yes, it will be able to be applied to pages in any namespace. But of course there is an expectation that admins using p-batch have a certain amount of clue... — This, that and the other (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Help with putting Twinkle on another wiki

I've been trying to get Twinkle on another wiki: I have this, this and this, but it keeps complaining "Morebits is not defined". Help? -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 07:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The error message says it all: In your common.js file, you need to include morebits.js (using importScript) and morebits.css (using importStylesheet) before including Twinkle. Try that and see if it works. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I included the morebits in the twinkle.js instead: still doesn't work. :( -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 08:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so I included it instead in my common.js, and it got past that. Let's see what happens now. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 08:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Still says morebits isn't defined... -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 08:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps what you need is something like this (please check the URLs to make sure I got it right):

mw.loader.using( ['mediawiki.user','mediawiki.util','jquery.ui.dialog','jquery.tipsy'], function(){
        mw.loader.load('//minecraft.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=User:Numbermaniac/morebits.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
        mw.loader.load('//minecraft.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=User:Numbermaniac/morebits.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css', 'text/css');
        mw.loader.load('//minecraft.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=User:Numbermaniac/twinklewarn.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
        mw.loader.load('//minecraft.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=User:Numbermaniac/twinklespeedy.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
// add all the other Twinkle modules here
        mw.loader.load('//minecraft.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=User:Numbermaniac/twinkle.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
  });

(I think we also have a dependency on moment.js, but that is currently only used by the AN3 section of ARV, which is probably not relevant to other wikis.)

Give that a go, and see how it comes off. It may or may not work. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Suppress "If this is your first article" for experienced editors?

Could Twinkle be more selective about adding the "If this is your first article... " box along with a CSD notification - check whether editor has a certain edit count, or number of new articles created, or something like that? I know it says "If...", but it still looks foolish. See User_talk:20-dude#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_William_T._Still as an example. PamD 09:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a Twinkle thing. Change the template, the name of which can be found in the hidden text in the template, if you want. Twinkle just applies the template. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I would in fact argue that if this issue were to be fixed, the fix would come from Twinkle rather than from the template. IIRC, there is a parameter available that suppresses the Article Wizard box (or if there isn't already one, it could be added). Twinkle would need to determine whether this parameter should be set or not.

The difficulty here (and one of my pet hates of Wikipedia's API, actually) is that we can't encapsulate several queries in one request. By that, I mean, if we want to know who created the article, we send a request to the Wikipedia server, and get back a response with their user name and some other mostly useless data. If then we want to know, say, the edit count of that user, we then need to send a second request. This would increase the amount of time it takes to CSD articles - depending on where you are in the world, the increase may be quite noticeable. (Facebook's API does this sort of "multiple query in the one request" stuff a lot better than Wikipedia's API, but that's a moot point, I guess...)

So, foolishness may have to win out this time, unfortunately. I hope my explanation makes sense. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I would not support increasing the period while one waits for the server to react. Please would you add this to your ever increasing list of "When the API improves, then we will..." items? I see this as medium importance, low urgency, with the urgency and importance based on the ability to have TW perform the task in a timely manner. Fiddle Faddle 08:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

page protection request working?

I was trying rpp today (used it for years) and suddenly with firefox I can make the request but it just sits there doing nothing. Not sure which end the error lies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It works for me; Perhaps you had a bad hair day. _→AzaToth 22:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

AzaToth, I just tried to use it to request Full protection on User:Jackson Peebles and it hangs for me too. Checking my console gives me an "obj not defined" fatal error when I click the submit button. Let me know if there's anything else I can offer to help figure it out. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not working for me either. Since today, when I try to request page protection, it produces the window but then it just freezes. Jinkinson talk to me 03:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Fyunck and Jinkinson, it would be helpful to know which page you were trying to request protection on and what level you were requesting. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Galesburg, Illinois, temporary semi-protection. Jinkinson talk to me 03:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

ATP World Tour records, temporary semi-protection. I since listed it manually but it hasn't been done yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@AzaToth and Amalthea: Do you think one of you could revert this change while it is being investigated? — This, that and the other (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

RPP fails for non-admins but works for sysops. More later... — This, that and the other (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Which change, MediaWiki:Gadget-twinkleprotect.js can't have been it? Amalthea 10:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, there was one after that. d7ec55f1050 still worked for my non-admin account, so twinkleprotect.js now reverted to that version. I have not looked into the problem. Amalthea 10:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle.protect.currentProtectionLevel is undefined in https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle/blob/c5d97378dfa33d9ab817b25e3124a02a5614bec3/modules/twinkleprotect.js#L1304 -- I'll leave the rest to you, not sure at a glance what the logic is here. :) Amalthea2 (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Reports

Is there any way to make an ANI or a Arbitration report using Twinkle? If not, then are they planning to make that happen in the next update? Blurred Lines 18:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 30#Admin's Noticeboard Reporting and the discussion linked from there. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The 3RR reporting function

Please feel free to call me a blithering idiot over this. I am a very rare reporter of souls to the 3RR/edit warring noticeboard, so I was very pleased to see that I can do this with TW. But I had a problem using it. I didn't have a very clear idea of what to tick nor what the effect was of ticking things, and, despite efforts having been made on a talk page to resolve the issue, nothing was tickable, despite being tickworthy.

Please would you look at the user dialogue with a view to making blithering idiots like me better able to understand what to do? I'm quite bright, usually, but this one perplexed me. Fiddle Faddle 13:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I am an even rarer reporter of souls to AN3 than you: I've never done it in my life, whether by hand or using Twinkle!

@AzaToth:: Could you take a look at this one? I'm scared to go near AN3, since I'm not familiar with the on-wiki process, let alone the Twinkle code for it...

It might be useful if you could explain in a little more detail what you expected to see, and the specific aspects of the user interface/procedure that you found confusing. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The challenge is that I am not sure what I expected to see. I know how unhelpful that statement is. This was my first time. Prior to this I was a virgin. All I know is that it made it relatively easy to achieve, but that I felt all at sea while achieving it. And that is unhelpful information, too. I know I achieved it imperfectly, buyt made up for it by writing a commentary that folk could understand. I achieved this report. I wonder if that is at all helpful to you to analyse what was lacking in the dialogue? Fiddle Faddle 09:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand the UI is a bit difficult to understand; I myself had issues grasping which data was to be included in a 3RR report. The procedure here should be as following:

• On the page of the suspect, you run ARV/3RR
• Enter the page in question and hit load
• Select the edits made by the suspect that you feel are part of the reverts, including intermediate edits, where suspect makes multiple edits to complete the revert.
• You select any edits you made to suspect talk page which are 3RR warnings
• And you select edits where you have initiated a resolution progress on the article talk page (difficult)

That's the major parts. _→AzaToth 14:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The step you mark as 'difficult' I found impossible. It let me select nothing at all. Fiddle Faddle 14:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle posts to wrong page

Regarding this edit, automatically made when I nominated an article for speedy deletion, can you set it to ignore redirects when placing notifications? 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.} _{See where I screwed up.} 17:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:2Awwsome: #Is it possible to fix this? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that's different. In this one, the page it should have been posted to was a redirect to the page it was posted on. The other one was notifying the creator of a redirect that was expanded to an article that it might be deleted. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.} _{See where I screwed up.} 17:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:2Awwsome: Right, but I think it might be related... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not related. Twinkle is designed to follow redirects on user talk pages, so that notifications for alternative accounts and renamed users end up in the right place. However, in this case, the "cross-namespace" redirect should not be followed. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume it could be possible to not follow redirects if they redirect outside User namespace. _→AzaToth 19:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Glitch?

FYI

 – Not a Twinkle error, reported at mw:Talk:Beta Features/Nearby Pages#Conflicts with Twinkle, workaround by deactivating the "Near this page" beta feature in your preferences.

Why is it that whenever I do something using Twinkle, a message stating, "parsererror "OK" occurred while contacting the API." pops up? ZappaOMati 03:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

+1 - Thank God I'm not the only one :) . →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems to have blown over? Probably just a transient API issue. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Has not blown over for me. I'm still caught in the storm. Dismas|^(talk) 10:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Nor for me. I can't tag anything for speedy deletion with Twinkle anymore, or revert anyone's edits; when I try to do so, I get this same error. Jinkinson talk to me 15:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Seems it's one of the beta features ? (RM beta, CSD'd sandbox & hey presto!)....

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes; specifically, there seems to be a conflict between Twinkle and the "Near this page" beta feature. If you are having trouble, please try turning off this beta option and see if Twinkle works for you. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

  Right, and the same goes for TW in other languages.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, FYI, it's not an error limited to the "Near this page" beta feature. It also happens with just "Media Viewer" which leads me to believe it is an issue with the beta features extension itself and not just specific features. Technical 13 (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Media Viewer is not causing me any grief on Firefox 25, so maybe this is a separate issue on certain browsers/systems. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 120#Twinkle and I'm also using Firefox 25. Technical 13 (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

AIV reporting

I noticed that when I am reporting a user for vandalism, I can't click on the "evidence for vandalism only account" box. Are they replacing it with a new option, or it's just a bug? Blurred Lines 04:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This will happen if it's an IP, they are not considered an "account" Mlpearc (open channel) 04:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh... now I know why. Thanks for responding to my question! Blurred Lines 04:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, glad to help. Cheers. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Not able to get TW to work this week

Recently when I have tried using TW I have been getting errors - "User talk page modification: parsererror "OK" occurred while contacting the API." I don't know if there is a TW problem or something on my browser or PC is set up wrong. It's really irritating - I can't get anything to work.. Any idea? (now that I think of it - perhaps a beta somewhere is clashing - I'll test that but meanwhile) if anyone knows what the problem is I'd love some help! -- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 12:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Never Mind - I turned off all the Beta options and TW is fine now. Thanks for your help - if I hadn't asked I wouldn't have thought of it! -- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 12:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted :) The Nearby Pages beta feature (and perhaps also Media Viewer) are at fault here. IF you want, you could try the beta features again late next week (after the next Wikimedia code deployment), and you should hopefully find that they co-exist with Twinkle without any issues. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Is this bug reported anywhere? You mention that it will be fixed next week - I'm guessing/hoping you know this for sure! :) –Quiddity (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it might not be fixed next week, as there will not be any deployments due to the Thanksgiving holiday. The bug was reported at bugzilla:57556 and has been repaired in the codebase; we are just waiting for the new code to be deployed on-wiki. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

TW not working for RFPP

The API gives me the message that the template {{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}} needs fixing but there is nothing wrong with the template. I also tried fixing the RFPP section heading earlier but to no avail. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

it also failed for me doing a request for unprotection, and the heading text has changed from the twinkle text (and thou shalt not revert to the twinkle recommended version as consensus outranks usability apparently) The-Pope (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried to change the heading and then requested protection again but it didn't work. So it appears that the heading has no effect. Something else must be malfunctioning. I didn't even know that there was a discussion about the change in section heading but my change was reverted and that's how I found out about it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Dr.K., I've restored the section headings to what WP:TW is looking for. Please BYPASS and try again. Ping me with {{U|Technical 13}} if you're still having an issue. Technical 13 (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Technical 13. I'll let you know as soon as I request another protection. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:Twinkle/Fixing RPP might need to be fixed. Technical 13, can you have a look? It's alright, I did it. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)09:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It has just gone wrong for me. I'll have to dig out those section headers again. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush:: I think Twinkle is getting confused by the full move protection on the article. Because you are requesting semi-protection, Twinkle thinks you want to downgrade the protection level. We'll have to think about how to fix this, while at the same time making Twinkle behave sensibly when you request a downgrade in move protection (AzaToth: ping). — This, that and the other (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that move protection existed for the thing when I requested semi, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

IP using Twinkle?

See this edit. Is the IP just using the edit summary, or did he get into Twinkle? buffbills7701 00:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Probably logged out then used twinkle from a page he already had loaded, I just tried it and it works --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• I tried logging out and manually importing the script to the .js subpage of my IP address but even with that it never properly loaded the script. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've had this happen to me once. I guess that the "remember me for 30 days" period expired just before I used a Twinkle function. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle warning problem Comment

I warned a user about vandalism using the template. I tried to use Twinkle, but it said "User talk page modification: parsererror "OK" occurred while contacting the API". 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 21:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@2Awwsome: If you look further up this page, you'll see there are problems with some of the new "Beta features". Do you have any of those turned on? -- John of Reading (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Both the VisualEditor ones and Near this Page. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 21:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Disabled Near this Page and it worked. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 21:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

OK

Lately, twinkle has been giving me the following error: "User talk page modification: parsererror "OK" occurred while contacting the API.". Does anyone know what may be causing this? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC) I lrn-2-read'ed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

When tagging articles for improvement an automatic notice to the page creator would be helpful. Dlohcierekim 01:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User talk page notifications missing

For at least two pages now, Twinkle hasn't notified the creating user of the page that it has been nominated for speedy deletion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You're going to need to be more specific. In particular, it has been decided that some speedy deletion criteria do not require notifications, and therefore Twinkle has been configured not to issue notifications when those criteria are used, regardless of your Twinkle preferences. So you'll need to specify precisely which CSD option you used. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Error

Ive been getting User talk page modification: parsererror "OK" occurred while contacting the API.When I was trying to warn an IP and also when I was trying to revert an edit.Bobherry talk 17:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@Bobherry: If you look further up this page, you'll see there are problems with some of the new "Beta features". Do you have any of those turned on? -- John of Reading (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I have the Near thingy on and the editor one on I think.Bobherry talk 17:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

At least for now, if you want to use Twinkle you'll have to turn off the "Near this page" beta feature. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I use it lots. But anyway I fixed it.Bobherry talk 18:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle protection interface

With the admin protection interface, would it be possible for Twinkle to automatically include the expiry parameter when the interface is being used to protect the page? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Could you elaborate a bit here? I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. Do you mean the |expiry= parameter on the protection tags? — This, that and the other (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yep that's what I was referring to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

uw-coi additional text

It seems that Twinkle may be applying {{uw-coi}} incorrectly, failing to put the additional text in the "additional text" parameter. Please see earlier discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#uw-coi additional text. Is that fixable? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

rollback (VANDAL) option - default text

Hi, to be more clear behind the reason for the edit when using the red 'rollback (VANDAL) option' on a diff page, should TW not add a that is was for vandalism? Something like 'reason: vandalism' or 'vandalism rollback'.

Because it doesn't at the moment I use the plain rollback, but it would seam sensible for the quick option to be clearer. Cheers — KylieTastic (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A while back, a consensus formed that it is better not to specifically label edits as vandalism when reverting. There was an extensive discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_30#Please_remove_the_.22vandalism.22_summary.. However, you're not the first one to doubt this decision: see Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_30#Edit_summary_for_vandalism_rollback. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I still think "Vandal rollback" should mention vandal somewhere in the edit summary, even if only available to rollbackers, but I'm not ready to open another discussion about it right now. Let me put some more thought into it and see if I can come up with an idea that will work for most... Technical 13 (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

user setting option? let the user devide, whether it be rvv, rv vandal, etc.? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I can understand that having it just say 'vandalism' if people use if for other reasons may cause issues, but some text seems to be needed as no reason is also not good for any type of revert. Maybe something softer like "non-constructive edit"? However having it as a user option would be a great alternative, then whatever the default text is set (or not set) to the user can change it. (Sorry for the late response missed the updates!) Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

NFCR bug

One bug and one suggestion, when selecting the discussion venues on article pages it should default to NFCR, not FFD. also the edit summary references the term Image, when in fact the article is what is being listed. Werieth (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

These were both brought about by the fact that I didn't realise that articles could be sent to NFCR as well as files! I'll take a look at these issues. — This, that and the other (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed CSD

Have a look at WP:CSD#T4.--Launchballer 18:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, WT:CSD#CSD T4 proposal. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"rpp" tab functionality

Would it be possible to add a create protection option to the menu? Recently, I needed to request it for File:AFC-Logo Decline.svg and File:Search box monobook.PNG (as Commons images whose local file description pages were repeatedly and unconstructively re-created). SuperMarioMan 22:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It's already there (?). Works for me at least. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

File:AFC-Logo Decline.svg is already protected though. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes; sorry, you're right. The option appears as long as the page doesn't exist (well, naturally, of course...) In the case of these files, I attempted to request protection via Twinkle immediately after tagging for CSD F2 – before the deletions – and was consequently presented with the standard tab, which offers full/semi/move-protection etc. but not creation protection. SuperMarioMan 01:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Not quite a G13

Please, Twinkle Gods, look at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G13 where a conversation is developing that could, perhaps should, interest you. Fiddle Faddle 16:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else having this problem?

I've been trying to report users to UAA using Twinkle, but recently have not been able to do so--when I click the submit query button it takes me to WP:UAA, but the name I was trying to report isn't there. Is this only happening to me, and regardless of whether it is only happening to me, does anyone know why? Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 00:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

When an issue could be in Multiple Issues

Recently I added three or four issues to the head of an article. TW grouped the new ones into {{multiple issues}} which it also added, but it could have been very sweet and added the single issue that was already present into MI as well. It didn't, but it could have.

Please will the Twinkle Fairies consider this area when next in this part of the code? Like all things it feels simple from the outside, but I bet it ain't! Fiddle Faddle 13:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting that you should bring this up! We have a GitHub issue on this topic from June 2011, and no doubt it was requested on numerous occasions before then, so it is a long-standing request.

It is very likely that this functionality would come hand-in-hand with an ability to remove tags from an article, which is one of our "TODO list" entries on this page. I began work on this a couple of weeks ago, but due to other requirements I have made little progress. So rest assured that the Tag module has not been forgotten, and improvements are in the midst of development.

Utilising existing {{multiple issues}} templates is probably simpler than I have taken it to be - and I imagine it could be done independently of the tag removal functionality - but I figured I may as well go the whole hog while I'm working on Tag code! — This, that and the other (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems with RPP mis-filings

Since the new RPP section headers ("request for increase/decrease in protection level") were introduced, there have been several reports of Twinkle placing requests for increases in protection (e.g. semi-protecting a page with no edit protection) in the "decrease" section of RPP. This occurred when a page was move-protected but not edit-protected.

I have written code (not yet deployed on-wiki) that seems to fix this issue. Sorry for the delay - the code change may have looked simple, but it took me a lot of goes before I got where I wanted!

The "weighting" scheme used when determining where to place RPP requests is as follows. A request with a higher weighting than the page's current protection will go in the "increase" section, all others (same or lower weighting) go in "decrease".

edit=sysop: 30
edit=templateeditor: 20
Pending Changes level 2 + edit=autoconfirmed: 17   [cannot request this using RPP at the moment?? see known issue below]
Pending Changes level 2 alone: 16                  [cannot request this using RPP at the moment]
Pending Changes level 1 + edit=autoconfirmed: 12   [cannot request this using RPP at the moment?? see known issue below]
Pending Changes level 1 alone: 11
edit=autoconfirmed: 10
No edit/PC protection: 0

A known issue here is that a request for semi-protection on a page that already has PC protection will go in the "decrease" section. This type of request is ambiguous: does the requester want PC removed and semi-protection instated, or both PC and semi at once?

Hopefully the RPP module will work as expected for you once the fix is deployed. Please speak up if something looks wrong to you. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it This, that and the other, would you be able to swap PC1 and semi protection. Generally when a page is semi protected and listed at RFP it's because the requested wants it downgraded to PC1. Likewise if a page is PC1 protected and is listed the requester generally wants it upgraded to semi protection. This doesn't get around the issue you've stated above (which is usually solved by admin discretion) but in my experience what I've said is generally the way it goes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting point: I had always assumed that semi-protection was somehow "lesser" than PC1. So do you think something like this would work better:

edit=sysop: 30
edit=templateeditor: 20
Pending Changes level 2 + edit=autoconfirmed: 17   [cannot request this using RPP at the moment?? see known issue below]
Pending Changes level 2 alone: 15                  [cannot request this using RPP at the moment]
Pending Changes level 1 + edit=autoconfirmed: 12   [cannot request this using RPP at the moment?? see known issue below]
edit=autoconfirmed: 10
Pending Changes level 1 alone: 5
No edit/PC protection: 0

I know the numbers seem somewhat arbitrary, but there is logic behind it! It's the ordering that is the main thing. Does it seem right to you? — This, that and the other (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:This, that and the other: sorry I haven't replied, completely forgot about it. The numbers do seem somewhat arbitrary, but the pattern looks right. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Callanecc: This has been implemented on-wiki now. Let us know of any issues. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The new Draft and Draft Talk namespace

Following the new addition of the Draft namespace, I have created {{ld}} and {{ldt}} templates for the RfPP page. Might want to add that to Twinkles list of templates to use. I will be modifying Cyberbot I accordingly to accommodate this change.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 21:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look and add the needed code, thanks. —mc10 (t/c) 23:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Missing some tabs

I only see a "csd" and "prod" tab in article space, but I see all the tabs in User space and Wikipedia space. -- John Reaves 01:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Strange. Works for me. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It's the same in Firefox and Chrome. I blanked my monobook.js just in case an bit of script there was fouling things up. -- John Reaves 01:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@John Reaves: Could you say which browser (and which version of that browser) you are using? — This, that and the other (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Chrome Version 31.0.1650.63 m. And Firefox 26.0. -- John Reaves 07:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Any thoughts? -- John Reaves 05:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you open your error console (press F12 in each browser and switch to the "Console" panel) and reload some articles? Perhaps some interesting errors or warnings show up there as the page is loading. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

event.returnValue is deprecated. Please use the standard event.preventDefault() instead. load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki%2CSpinner%7Cjquery.triggerQueueCallback%2Cl…:48:

In Chrome. -- John Reaves 07:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

That all? I don't think that one is related to Twinkle.

If you're only getting CSD and PROD, then XFD is seemingly at fault, since it should be the next one to load. Can you try entering the code Twinkle.xfd() into the console and pressing Enter once the page has completed loading? For me, this adds the "XFD" item to the Twinkle menu.

While you're at it, try clearing your browser cache entirely, as explained at WP:BYPASS#CLEAR. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP Prod

Show talk page doesn't take you to the article talk page. And is it Twinkle that is giving BLP prods a 10 day expiration? The text correctly says 7 days (recent change to bring in line with other Prods) but the bit that gives the date the prod was added and the expiry date shows 10. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Without more detail, I suspect these issues are actually in the {{blp prod}} and {{prod blp/dated}} templates themselves. All Twinkle does is place these templates. If it turns out that Twinkle itself is doing something wrong, it would be good to know. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I think I fixed the template: [6]. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject template selector

A while ago, I asked for an addition to Twinkle, to tag article talk pages with WikiProject templates. This, that and the other commented that this is a perennial request, but difficult to achieve. I've now found that the AfC helper script's has a very useful WikiProject template selector, which (by reusing code) could perhaps be included in Twinkle, or made to run as a stand-alone tool. Comments welcome at WP:VPT#WikiProject template selector. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That is very interesting, thanks for pointing that out. I don't have time right now to go looking into it, but I'll be sure to check it out. Thanks. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I dunno if it's quite what you're looking for, but I use User:Kephir/gadgets/rater.js to semi-automatically add/modify/re,ove WikiProject banners. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Lack of Welcomes?

Did Twinkle not used to add welcome templates when giving a warning to a new user talk page, or am I dreaming. I keep seeing new editors starting to edit and just getting warnings - e.g. User talk:Slunxstar - they probably haven't a clue what they are doing wrong and no way to find out!  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle adds auto-welcomes when placing most deletion notification templates. Apart from that, we never did anything more. I think in many cases a welcome + level 1 warning would be far more effective than just the warning, but it would be a big change to make. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we add {{Welcome to Wikipedia}} to the list? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle does offer this feature still. Whilst on a userpage click on the "wel" (welcome) button, then scroll down to "Problem user welcome templates", select the most appropriate, link an article if required and hit "Submit Query". The user is then welcomed (complete with the usual links) and warned simultaneously. Job done! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome feature request

I would like the ability to include additional text with a welcome. For warnings, there's an "Optional message" field, and it would be great to have this capability for welcomes too. While the additional text is a parameter built into the warning templates, for welcomes it would be a Twinkle extension. This text could be used, for example, to especially praise something the user did right, or to explain the correct way to do something they did which was not-quite-right. Currently, one would have to either manually issue the welcome and include the desired text, or issue a welcome with Twinkle and perform a second, manual edit to add the text. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There's been no response one way or the other. If this request has been rejected, that's fine, but I'd just like to make sure it wasn't accidentally overlooked, before it gets archived. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Mandarax. This seems to have been missed. I can't see any reason against possibly developing this feature in the future, so I've filed it in our issue tracker so it doesn't get lost. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Orphan tags need to be added to the talk namespace instead of the mainspace following RfC

Following the outcome of this RfC, orphan tags need to be added to the talk namespace instead of the mainspace. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle isn't capable of adding tags to talk pages at the moment, since we don't have the logic needed to deal with the multitude of talk page header templates that exist. The best approach here would be to remove {{orphan}} from Twinkle altogether, which I will do. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This is no longer necessary per the WP:VPR#Alternate idea? discussion. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: So do you want {{orphan}} re-added to Twinkle? — This, that and the other (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes please. Technical 13 (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

R caps

Should let ya'll know that I just converted {{R from other capitalisation}} from the old format to the {{Redirect template}} format. It is still meant to operate only in mainspace, but this conversion will categorize all redirects in other namespaces that are tagged with this Rcat into C:WRONG. That way we can find them and fix them. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 05:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There are none. So, you should not worry. If later backlogs arise, then you should contact WP:AWB/Tasks. Still, thanks for letting everyone know. --Ankit Maity ^(chatter)_Contribs 07:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Ankit Maity! The errors will slowly populate C:WRONG; it takes awhile for the new edit to "trickle down". I'll keep an eye on it. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Addition of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk to TB noticeboard options

Would it be possible to add Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk to the list of noticeboards supported by the TalkBack feature in Twinkle. It would make it easier to notify new users that their question has received a response. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 16:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Bellerophon: I'm so sorry for not replying any sooner. Turns out this feature was implemented about a week ago. I hope it helps you and others that patrol the AFC help desk. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Thanks for that! I've been off line for a while. It will certainly help. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:non-free review

The discussion is closed as "no consensus" to use this template in non-File: pages. Therefore, options about files must be restricted to only File pages. --George Ho (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the solution here should actually be to stop Twinkle from placing the {{non-free review}} template on non-File pages. The option to send to NFCR should remain available on article pages. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with This, that and the other, Werieth (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@George Ho and Werieth:: This has now been fixed, so you can nominate articles for NFCR without concern. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Advanced Reporting and Vetting

Hello, I have an issue with the WP:AN3 function of Twinkle. I have recently attempted to report two cases of edit warring using thus function. However, after clicking on the submit query button nothing seems to have happened. The twinkle pop-up window disappeared but nothing seems to have happened. Is this query supposed to be posted on the edit war noticeboard or is it dealt with in an other manner when using Twinkle? Tvx1 (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Tvx1, yes, Twinkle is supposed to post at WP:AN3. The Twinkle pop-up should not disappear when you click Submit; instead you should see a list of status messages. Do you see any of these? — This, that and the other (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not see a list of status messages. Tvx1 (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have now successfully tried again to report the cases using Twinkle. Thanks anyway for the help. Tvx1 (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Nominating multiple categories for renaming?

Is there any way to do this? I've checked and I can't find anything that lets me nominate more than one category at a time. LazyBastardGuy 15:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If I'm nominating multiple pages in the one deletion nomination, I will:

1. use Twinkle to nominate the first page;
2. go over to the discussion that has been opened, and
   1. add the other pages, and
   2. alter the section heading to reflect the general nature of the discussion;
3. alter the XFD template that Twinkle placed to reflect the new section heading;
4. go to each of the other pages in turn and copy-and-paste the XFD template from the first page onto those pages.

It's cumbersome, and some might say Twinkle should automate it somehow. How this could be done is not clear, and it would take a bit of work. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your input. I imagine if enough people want it they'll add it to Twinkle, but in the meantime I'll probably try it your way. Editors probably also have other scripts enabled to make this easier; I know Koavf nominates about a hundred things at a time sometimes and that can't be easy to do this way, so I imagine he has a tool that makes working with it easier. (Maybe AutoWikiBrowser or something.) LazyBastardGuy 16:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Checking for mutually-exclusive tags

It would be neat if Twinkle could check for mutually-exclusive tags, and remove or warn about them.

For instance; suppose I find an article tagged with {{unreferenced}}, but it has one or two references (though still needing more). I can use Twinkle to add {{ref improve}}, but currently, it leaves the former tag in place, even though it never makes sense to have both at once. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's doing that, could it please also check for existence of any tag ending in "-stub}}" (ie a specific stub tag), and inform the user who attempts to add {{stub}} to such an article of their error? In this case it's not a matter of removing the existing tag, but refusing to add the inappropriate new tag, but the logic should be similar. PamD 22:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Other template bombing errors that I've seen include articles which manage to both be BLPs and non BLPs or both unsourced and partially sourced. Not sure if its Twinkle that contributes to that, but it would be nice if it could prevent some of it. Or do some tidying up such as removing unreferenced or refimprove when someone adds BLPsources. ϢereSpielChequers 11:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Purge when reverting a subpage

After reverting a subpage, could Twinkle also purge the parent page? [and the grandparent page, if applicable] I often forget to do this. For example, see Portal:Miley Cyrus/Intro - the vandalism was so offensive that I had it revdel'd, but because I forgot to purge the portal page it was still visible there hours later. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Purge when reverting a subpage

After reverting a subpage, could Twinkle also purge the parent page? [and the grandparent page, if applicable] I often forget to do this. For example, see Portal:Miley Cyrus/Intro - the vandalism was so offensive that I had it revdel'd, but because I forgot to purge the portal page it was still visible there hours later. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, just to let you know we haven't forgotten about Twinkle :) Lately the "Twinkle team" has consisted of me and MC10, with valued assistance from Amalthea, and important contributions from Jimmy xu wrk and the great AzaToth. Most of us are relatively inactive, and I have been spending more time helping MediaWiki core development efforts, so Twinkle development has slowed recently.

I have an almost-finished "talk tag" module in the works, which will allow you to apply a selection of tags to article talk pages, as well as WikiProject tags. There are still a few loose ends left to implement, and I should hopefully have it done by the end of the week.

Additionally, I have started work on adding tag removal functionality to the Tag module. This is a bigger task than it may seem, and I should be able to finish this eventually.

I can see there are a few feature requests and other miscellaneous queries above. Please know that you have not been ignored :) I have seen them all, and one of us will act on them when we get a chance.

Keep on Twinkling, everyone! — This, that and the other (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

R from duplicated article

In compliance with Twinkle notification, the Rcat {{R from duplicated article}} has been enabled to sort mainspace redirects into Category:Unprintworthy redirects. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Paine. Perhaps we need to change the {{Twinkle standard installation}} notice: realistically, we are only concerned with template changes if (a) parameters are altered, renamed or removed, (b) the template is drastically altered (for example, it is repurposed, or a == header == is added), (c) the template is moved, or (d) the template is deleted or nominated for deletion. Changes to categorization do not affect Twinkle. Hopefully this will take the load off your back a little bit. — This, that and the other (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Warning when prodding an article

I propose that a warning should be given prior to posting if the article was previously prod'd and deprodded or previously AfD'd. Or perhaps disable that option entirely for these articles.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, but better still, since you aren't supposed to prod an article that's been previously prodded or has survived an AFD, could twinkle just tell the person who tries to prod an article that they can't do so because of a previous prod or AFD? ϢereSpielChequers 11:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant. A warning does show up, after the button "Propose deletion" has been pressed thus requiring extra reverting. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

And how would Twinkle know if there was a previous PROD? It doesn't "categorize" the article and it's not always mentioned in the edit summary when done manually (and sometimes an editor summary will mention a PROD without actually PRODing the article). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it could use the same thing that the prod template uses if its added to an article previously prodded or afd'd. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 03:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Bug?

Please see the recent history of this page: List of Caillou characters Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@Dogmaticeclectic: When reporting bugs, you need to give a description and explanation of what the bug is - at least two detailed sentences if possible. I don't want to seem annoying, but given your past bug reports, I don't think you quite realise how important it is to do this. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

On two separate occasions, I clicked on "rollback (VANDAL)" intending to revert two consecutive edits (made by the same user), but Twinkle only reverted one. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a known problem with v6 IP addresses - see Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 34#Rollback Error. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; see https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle/issues/145 for more information. I really can't see any progress being made on the MediaWiki solution any time soon, so we may have to work around this bug. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding support for section tags

Hi,
Thank you guys so much for developing such a wonderful editing aid! Twinkle is so useful, and the GUI fits in with MediaWiki so naturally! What I was wondering is whether it would be possible to add section maintenance tags to Twinkle (the ones that are here) to aid with maintenance tagging? Thanks!
Sincerely,
Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

image has rationale option

Is there going to be a new tag option on photos to add this tag "image has rationale=yes" in a license to a copyrighted image that's in fair use? --Blurred Lines 15:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP PROD when already CSD'd?

I sometimes find an article which has been nominated for CSD, usually A-7, but which also should be tagged BLP PROD. Here's an example. Twinkle won't let me tag it as BLP PROD, because it already has the CSD tag. But of course the fact that it's been tagged for CSD doesn't mean it necessarily will be deleted. It would be useful to be able to add BLP PROD to such an article there and then, rather than watchlisting it to see whether it gets deleted or not and then returning to BLP PROD it later if still unsourced. PamD 16:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

image has rationale option

Is there going to be a new tag option on photos to add this tag "image has rationale=yes" in a license to a copyrighted image that's in fair use? --Blurred Lines 15:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Expiry date on protection tags

Can you add an expiry section in Twinkle for when it's only a temporary protection? buffbills7701 22:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Admins get this already, but us poor non-admins don't get it. This is https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle/issues/202. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle incredibly slow?

I noticed that Twinkle's rollback, page tagging, and many other functions are suddenly taking a long time, longer than usual. Sometimes it takes up to thirty seconds or more to revert an edit. Oddly, Twinkle's user warning function appears to function normally. Is anybody else noticing this? K6ka (talk | contribs) 16:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Checking for mutually-exclusive tags

It would be neat if Twinkle could check for mutually-exclusive tags, and remove or warn about them.

For instance; suppose I find an article tagged with {{unreferenced}}, but it has one or two references (though still needing more). I can use Twinkle to add {{ref improve}}, but currently, it leaves the former tag in place, even though it never makes sense to have both at once. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's doing that, could it please also check for existence of any tag ending in "-stub}}" (ie a specific stub tag), and inform the user who attempts to add {{stub}} to such an article of their error? In this case it's not a matter of removing the existing tag, but refusing to add the inappropriate new tag, but the logic should be similar. PamD 22:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Other template bombing errors that I've seen include articles which manage to both be BLPs and non BLPs or both unsourced and partially sourced. Not sure if its Twinkle that contributes to that, but it would be nice if it could prevent some of it. Or do some tidying up such as removing unreferenced or refimprove when someone adds BLPsources. ϢereSpielChequers 11:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This is certainly something we'll be thinking about. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing "user" menu?

Hello! Quick question here. I recently cleared Twinkle and Friendly out of my monobook.js page in order to enable Twinkle (which I assume encompasses Friendly's functions now?) via the Wikipedia widget checkboxes. However, I notice that I'm missing one option now. It used to be that while on a user's pages, I'd get a handy "user" menu up along the top bar, which would drop down with links to contributions, block options and the like. That seems to be missing now, and I'm not sure why. Any guidance on re-activating that would be appreciated! (If this wasn't a Twinkle option and I somehow inadvertently removed it some other way, my apologies) - Vianello (Talk) 00:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's in your preferences gadgets under appearance, the line starts with "Add page and user options...". 02:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I had a feeling I was just missing it somewhere in there. And naturally it wasn't a Twinkle issue at all. Thanks a bundle! - Vianello (Talk) 06:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI

{{R from title without diacritics}} has been converted to usage of {{Redirect template}}. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Since usage of the template has not changed this should not affect Twinkle. Amalthea 15:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Future of Twinkle

2013-10-10 Curator Nominate-for-deletion-dialog

Can Twinkle design layout be update as it looks in Nominate for deletion gadget on Commons? I know how it can be done (design update), but please tell me if it's possible. I think this will enhance Twinkle's user experience and will be useful enhancement. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I do like the appearance of Commons' AjaxQuickDelete gadget (and other gadgets over there, such as the file move requester). But my main concern (personally speaking) is that Twinkle works effectively. By its nature, Twinkle has a more complex user interface than the gadgets at Commons, and we need a more "compact" interface to fit all the controls and form fields.

By the way, Twinkle looks pretty awful in skins other than Vector, so consider making the switch to Vector if you are using one of the legacy skins. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This, that, Well, I use Vector skin by default but I mean rather small changes:

1. Make the titlebar looks like in AjaxQuickDelete and other gadgets that use jQuery dialog feature.
2. Put a little ui-friendless into the footer as well - add green and red buttons on the right and move help link to the left.

That's all for now! What do you think? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 00:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The custom "skin" we have on top of Twinkle dialogs was designed to mimic the old look of Twinkle dialogs (see [7]). I agree that the skin could be overhauled or updated in the future, but really I think we have more important things to worry about before we get to interface design improvements. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've also another question, is there any property in Twinkle preferences to show generic notify instead of loading the whole nomination board page when nominating for deletion (XFD)? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 00:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Not at the moment. I suppose we could add one. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

See how it was done in d:MediaWiki:Gadget-RequestDeletion.js on Wikidata. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: OK, when can I come back? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: which important things to worry about you mean, I don't understand, please reply. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 12:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixing bugs, adding new functionality, etc. (basically anything in our GitHub issues list) all have a higher priority in my mind than appearance tweaks. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, but adding the idea to the buglist doesn't mean it should be resolved immediately, it will just wait for its turn. Could you add it please? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 19:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• This seems like as good of a section as any. I'm concerned about how Twinkle is going to get along with FLOW as it is already enabled on this wiki (albeit only on two WikiProject talk pages). Since this tool uses the API to post to talk pages, and Flow doesn't have an accessible API and talkpages no longer exist (per-say) with Flow... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not, Flow will very certainly not be rolled out without proper API support in place. And from what I read, there are so many concerns about the current implementation that it will be quite a while until anything needs to be implemented. Amalthea 23:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed. For something only in use on two pages, an API is not really necessary, and Flow's API is indeed still in development.

    When Flow becomes available for user talk pages, clearly Twinkle will need a substantial overhaul so that all modules work on Flow boards. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

New Twinkle module idea

How about a Twinkle module for nominating articles for GA, FA, FL, FP, etc? These are relatively simple tasks, so could be easily accomplished by Twinkle and are also often done. --Jakob (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Support can't wait, will be pretty useful. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Support as a very useful idea. Green Giant (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this would make a good Twinkle module.

1. The nomination part seems already very simple compared to the work needed to get the page ready for the nomination: For example, to nominate a "good article" you only need to put one template on the talk page, the rest is done by bot.
2. Adding this as a basic Twinkle function will cause an increase in the number of premature nominations, I expect -- I'd certainly want to hear the opinion of the main reviewers of those processes first.
3. I'm not convinced that enough people would be using it to make this part of Twinkle -- but I could be wrong there, I myself have never nominated a page for anything.

Amalthea 11:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Although the GA nomination procedure is certainly the simplest, a TW module would be more useful for some of the others. Featured articles, lists, and portals all require 3 steps: a template on the article talkpage, filling a subpage, and transcluding that subpage on the appropriate nominations page. Slightly less complex are featured pics and Did You Know (DYK) which involve creating a subpage and then transcluding that subpage on the nomination list. Twinkle wouldn't be useful for the featured and good topics because they involve more steps like creating books.
• That said, I can see an equally useful but more complex possibility - it would be fantastic if there was a module to help do the reviews for such nominations. I'm allowed to dream ain't I? :) Green Giant (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Protection templates

Resolved

I'm in the process of turning {{pp-dispute}}, {{pp-semi-blp}} and {{pp-semi-sock}} into templates which can be used for both full and semi protection. Obviously that'll mean that the protection module will need to be rewritten slightly. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just done {{pp-semi-sock}} which is now located at {{pp-sock}}, the others should be done in the next day or two. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: {{pp-semi-blp}} is now at {{pp-blp}} and works for both semi and full protection, plus {{pp-dispute}} works for both semi and full. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, seems like a positive change. Is there any chance of merging {{pp-usertalk}} and {{pp-semi-usertalk}} as well? I realise they have quite different wordings, but they seem ripe targets for merging and cleanup. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Doing it now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: All merged (last one just happened - {{pp-semi-usertalk}} --> {{pp-usertalk}}) so the protection module should be right to be updated now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Why does the template page transclude the sandbox inside noinclude tags? Doesn't seem quite right to me. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Fixed, it was just the example transclusion (on the template page) which was like that in the sandbox so that you can see it work. The user who responded to the edit request mustn't have caught it. Fixed now, it didn't make a difference really. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done except for the usertalk ones. That change is still waiting in our code repository. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Warning templates

On the dialog box for user warnings, is it possible to change the format so that we get the warning, followed by any optional message (still in italics) and then the "Thank you", instead of the "Thank you" appearing between the warning and the optional text? Is it also possible to avoid adding the "shared IP" notice if there is already one on the talkpage, to avoid this kind of repetitiveness? Green Giant (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking into this. Shouldn't be too hard, although the custom text would most likely replace the "Thank you" rather than precede it. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be equally good. Thanks. Green Giant (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Green Giant: This is now done. Give it a try! — This, that and the other (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: - Thank you very much, that looks much better. Any ideas on the shared IP notice? Green Giant (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

possibly erroneous notification

I moved the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/E4talent2010 (Second submission) to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eye4talent, then used Twinkle to request its speedy deletion. The "(Second submission)" in the earlier name is something that was probably added by an AFC reviewer. Twinkle sent a notification to N419BH, who had done work at WP:AFC, doesn't remember being the author of the draft, and thinks the notification went to the wrong person. We discussed this on N419BH's talk page. —rybec 22:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Rybec: Here's what happened: Twinkle looks at the first existing page revision to decide which user appears to be the author. In this case, the oldest revision in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eye4talent is indeed from N419BH, the automatic creation of a redirect during a page move with edit summary "moved User:E4talent2010 to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/E4talent2010: Correct location for AfC submissions". A month later, the user E4talent2010 created a new draft on his user page, overwriting the redirect. The page was again moved, this time to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/E4talent2010 (Second submission) by CharlieEchoTango, including the first revision by N419BH. You later moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eye4talent, and when you tagged that AfC submission for speedy deletion the author of the first revision and thus presumed page author was still N419BH, and consequently received the SD notice.
So this is not really a bug but by design. Of course there is room for improvement here, but it's rather hard for a script to figure out who the actual author of a page is.
Amalthea 23:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding a specified article to Template:Welcome-image

Resolved

Hi, I would like to be able to specify an article when I use the {{Welcome-image}} template. I mocked up this proposal in the template's (new) sandbox: Template:Welcome-image/sandbox. I also added a reference to the editor's contributions, as on other welcome templates. Could we agree to implement this change and allow Twinkle to use the article box in the user interface for {{Welcome-image}}? (The documentation would also need to be changed to read {{subst:welcome-image|Article}}.) Thanks! - tucoxn\^talk 09:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The parameter {{{1}}} is already used for the name of the welcoming user, which is also the standard. Could you change it to use {{{art}}}, just like e.g. {{welcome}} does?
The wording also sounds a bit ambiguous to me, I'd change it to something like "I also see that some of your recent edits show that you have an interest in the use of images [...]" -- but that may just be me.
Oh, and I'd also remove the bolding of the contributions link, I don't think that one is so important for the recipient that it needs highlighting.
Amalthea 10:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Done I've updated {{Welcome-image}} to be more accurate and consistent with other templates. It now supports |art= like the other templates that offer linking to an article. I will also go back and add a |nosig= and some point and a way to suppress the fake header (which should be suppressed by default probably). I know there are other welcomes that do this, just need to find one to make them consistent. Feel free to ping me in regards to any welcome template as I'm going through all of them I can find and attempting to make them more consistent as part of my User:Technical 13/Scripts/ACC WikiLove.js (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) project. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Not done While the template is indeed usable with the article parameter, it seems like Twinkle has not yet been updated to stop the greying-out of the article input box in the welcome pop-up. I hope this makes sense. - tucoxn\^talk 20:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ahh. So you want to Twinkle to be able to access this new parameter. Amalthea or TTO, can one of you take care of that? I've already added the parameter to the template and it is ready to go on the template's end. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, that's right. I could have added the feature to the template myself. I thought, however, it would be best to organize some sort of consensus regarding the change around the sandbox version. - tucoxn\^talk 23:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done — This, that and the other (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

 Thanks, I've use the new feature a few time and it works well! - tucoxn\^talk 23:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP PROD when already CSD'd?

I sometimes find an article which has been nominated for CSD, usually A-7, but which also should be tagged BLP PROD. Here's an example. Twinkle won't let me tag it as BLP PROD, because it already has the CSD tag. But of course the fact that it's been tagged for CSD doesn't mean it necessarily will be deleted. It would be useful to be able to add BLP PROD to such an article there and then, rather than watchlisting it to see whether it gets deleted or not and then returning to BLP PROD it later if still unsourced. PamD 16:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@PamD: Sorry for not answering this post! Your request is reasonable and I see no reason why it could not be done. I seem to remember this has been discussed in the past, but I can't for the life of me remember where the discussion was and what its outcome was. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Multiple criteria for CSD - why not additional?

Twinkle allows an editor to add more than one CSD criterion, using the "Tag with multiple criteria" button. So why doesn't it allow an editor to add a second CSD criterion to an article where another editor has previously added a CSD? I've just seen something tagged {{db-band}} to which I wanted to add G-11 as it's an advert, but I couldn't, with Twinkle. As Twinkle recognises that an article may have more than one reason to be deleted, why won't it let a second editor add a second reason? PamD 15:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This is for much the same reason as how Twinkle can't group tags already on a page into {{multiple issues}}. Grouping material that is already on the page is relatively difficult, and I suppose we haven't risen to that challenge yet. It is probably easier for CSD than for tag, and it's certainly sitting there at the back of my mind, waiting for a spare section of time to work on it... — This, that and the other (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It does this perfectly well when it's a question of adding a second PROD tag, so it should just be a matter of copying the code. DGG ( talk ) 09:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

May be of interest: mw:User:Kephir/XML parse tree. This is the parse tree you get when you set rvgeneratexml=1 when retrieving the page via mw:API:Properties#revisions / rv. Manipulating that tree instead of hacking through the wiki markup with regular expressions should be easier and more reliable. Keφr 13:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. How stable and reliable is the creation of wikicode from the parsed xml? It would be unpleasant if it caused dirty diffs. BTW, I noticed your section on serialization doesn't seem correct/complete, most elements from the section above aren't listed, and the nodes of a template seem more complex to me than your substitution accounts for.
As long as the template parameters aren't too complex matching templates with a regex isn't that hard, not sure it's worth going down that road. If anything I assume using Parsoid would make more sense ...
Amalthea 23:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed interesting. However I am hesitant to rely on an undocumented feature, and additionally, we often do regex replacements to modify the page text, something which the XML parse tree doesn't seem to help us with.

Parsoid does hold a lot of promise, but it is not stable and is still a bit problematic. (Interestingly, though, there are far fewer open bugs in Bugzilla relating to Parsoid than there are relating to the MediaWiki parser! I wonder what to make of that...) — This, that and the other (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

FTR, it seems possible to recreate the original wikitext from the parse tree, that's why I asked above how stable & clean that process is. Amalthea 23:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I tried it on some sample markup which contains everything documented, and xsltproc seems to reconstruct it perfectly, down to whitespace, using the XSLT stylesheet I just wrote. Keφr 09:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Could it just accept it as a second CSD nomination, rather than grouping it along with the first? In other words, allow Twinkle to accept a new CSD nomination when there is already one present (preferably checking automatically that it's a different criterion, or alternatively with a dialogue box like "This article has already been nominated for speedy deletion. Are you nominating it with a new criterion? Yes/No") It's frustrating when I see an article tagged for deletion for one criterion and I know it's also, perhaps more convincingly, eligible under another: I can't tell whether the admin who looks at it will be more swayed by the one or the other, and at present I can't add the one I've identified. PamD 23:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this a great point of frustration for Twinkle users, especially new page patrollers. It's something I'd like to get on top of soon. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add quiet support for the proposal/suggestion. Fiddle Faddle 16:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

xfd and pp tabs not showing up

The 'xfd' and 'pp' tabs will not display in the article or user namespace for some reason,displays in other namespaces though. Currently using the latest version of Chrome on Windows 7. -- John Reaves 04:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It works fine for me on Chrome on Windows, so I'm not too sure what is causing this problem. Are you seeing all the other tabs, including Unlink?

If you see this problem again, press F12, switch to the "Console" tab, type wgNamespaceNumber, and press Enter. You should see "0" for article pages and "2" for user pages, but it sounds like you might be seeing something else. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome templates

I'm writing here as a courtesy that I'm, as some of you way already be aware, going through the welcome templates and trying to make their parameter use and general appearance more consistent with each other. I've made another bunch of changes just now and the only one that may need some updating in Twinkle is the changes in parameters and new parameters added to {{Welcome-t}}. I'm about to go to bed for tonight and have an exam that I need to study for tomorrow and take Thursday, but I'll be plugging away at these again by Friday or Saturday. I'll give a full update of all changes made, add appropriate template data sections and update all documentation as I go as best I can. Basically if someone complains that "welcome-foo" isn't working like it used to, I probably updated it... The plan for parameters is as follows:

• |1= for an optional welcome message.
• |art= to link an article.
• |heading= to disable automatic heading.
• |headtext= for an optional alternate text to inject into the heading.
• |newuser= for alternate text for users with 0 contributions (such as ones just made via ACC)
• |newuser_topic= likely only used in {{Welcome-COI}} to specify a topic that a new user may have a COI with.
• |nosig= to disable automatic signatures.
• |notalk= to disable automatic link back to poster's talk page (no sure why anyone would want to since it is in your signature anyway and is more friendly wording, but seems to be a common theme).

Please, feel free to ping me, leave a message on my talk page, email me, find me on IRC if my client will stay connected, call me, text me, find me on FaceBook, or send me a carrier pigeon if you have any questions, comments, suggestions, or just want to trout me (you don't need a good reason, other than wanting to.).. Happy editing all! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Help regarding welcome teplate

I've tried to add the W-screen template in user talk page automatically but when I click on the "Wel" in use talk page it show the pop-up for choosing template while I have already set it to automatic. Please help ! I think I'm doing something wrong--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 14:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The "automatic" option only applies when you click the yellow "welcome" link seen on page diffs. You are always given the choice to select a welcome template when using the "Wel" option on a user talk page - otherwise, if you wanted to welcome a problem user with one of the specific templates or something like that, your only recourse would be to change your preferences. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverting and reporting trolls with attacking usernames

Is there any way to disable the automatic edit-summary of TW when reverting or reporting socks/vandals/trolls with attacking usernames? If the username of the troll is in itself an attack, it would be better to disable the automatic TW edit-summary before saving for the revert or any AIV/SPI report. This way the name/attack would not infect the edit-summary and perpetuate the attack. It would also save revdel time for the admins. Thanks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess in that case you could simply "undo" the edit and manually fix the edit summary, or instead of reverting the vandal's revisions, you could restore that last good version, which (IIRC) shows the username of the editor whose revision you're restoring to. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Salvidirim. The "undo" button is slow, and TW's "restore previous version" button can work in cases of reverting. But for reporting at AIV and UAA the TW edit-summary still carries the trolling username which is then repeated again when the bots copy it in their edit-summary when the troll gets blocked. Can the TW edit-summary be modified for reporting? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If the username is bad enough that it could require RevDeletion or that it needs to avoid being mentioned, then it clearly shouldn't be pushed through to AIV or UAA and should be dealt with more efficiently/discreetly. Privately contacting an admin seems like the best option to me. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But the troll will be left unchecked if the contacted admin is off-line. Plus I don't want to keep bothering admins I know for revdels. This is longterm abuse. In any case, thank you again Salvidirim. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Error handling question

Some current server problems made me notice: Twinkle doesn't seem to unload/disable itself when "Could not load twinkleoptions.js" occurs; a quick read of the source code confirms as much. Why? Is the list of blacklisted users still checked properly in such a case? (I haven't done anything to verify the latter, so don't think I'm reporting a known security bug - I know this isn't the proper place for that anyway.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no Twinkle blacklist anymore. twinkleoptions.js contains your personal Twinkle preferences, so if it fails to load, it will simply mean that Twinkle behaves in the default manner. Usually this situation occurs when you navigate away from a page before it has finished loading, but if it happens in other cases, refreshing the page should fix the problem. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your prompt attention. I was basically aware of all that already (and the case of my impatiently navigating away from the page had already happened quite a few times). My main point was that I thought it would have been good programming practice for Twinkle to abort entirely when such an error occurs, but I apologize if you consider such a feature request not worthwhile. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Stray content in user-warning edit-summary

I used TW to issue a warning to a user. The edit-summary says "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on [[[Hide] [Help with translations!] Vidya Academy of Science and Technology]]". Those "hide" and "help with translations" seem like they are indented to be links rather than visible with brackets. Or more likely that they are supposed to be links on the page discussing/listing them and missing <noinclude> or similar protection from appearing at all in the actual generated edit-summaries. DMacks (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! Those links are the same as those found in the Steward Elections banner shown on WMF sites. I suspect when you copy-pasted the page title from the top of the page, you accidentally selected the links from the banner as well. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• blink*. D'oh:( Carry on then, Better give myself time to let the coffee kick in... DMacks (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirect categorization

Can we add individual redirect categories to redirect tagging, as with maintenance tags? I tried adding one along with the regular maintenance tags but it didn't seem to work. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I would need a bit more context here... What exactly are you referring to? — This, that and the other (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Rcats, e.g., {{R from other capitalisation}}, {{R to section}}. Those are supported by TW, but I'm wondering if there's a way to add more. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so you'd like to add custom ones? It doesn't seem as though that has been thought of yet. To be honest it might just be better if we add any missing redirect tags to the default list, unless they're extremely obscure - after all, redirect tagging serves a different purpose to article maintenance tagging, so having an incomplete list of redirect tags is rather unhelpful. Which ones in particular would you like to see added? — This, that and the other (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I really like {{R from phrase}}. I don't do a lot of redirect categorization just for the sake of it—it's usually when I already find myself on a redirect, most often fixing a double one. But I'm gradually trying to populate Category:Redirects from phrases, so being able to quickly tag the relevant Rcat would be helpful. I'll ping the dean of Rcats, Paine Ellsworth, for further suggestions. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, BDD – I wish I could be more help, because I am not a Twinkle user. If I were a Twinkle user I might wonder why some rcats are usable with Twinkle while others aren't. Twinkle is already fairly well represented by the rcats in the functional index at {{R template index}}. Of those 55 most often used rcats, about half are already available to Twinkle users. I also wonder if Twinkle might be useful in conjunction with the {{This is a redirect}} template, which gives text a different (and in my humble opinion, better) appearance on redirects. It also acts as a shortcut, because it can hold up to six rcats – see this comparison page. Thank you, again, and I hope that as the Wikipedia project grows, and more editors turn to Twinkle for these tasks, that more rcats will become available for them to use to tag redirects. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle should tag with...

...{{Cleanup-bare URLs}} instead of {{linkrot}}}. (t) Josve05a (c) 01:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

To paraphrase AzaToth, "what is a 'cleanup-bare' URL?" I really can't believe I supported the renaming of this template back when I was younger and less mature, and I'd prefer to stick with the old redirect {{linkrot}} in Twinkle, simply because the name is so much more transparent and sensible. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

On the flip side, a new user might say "these links work, so there's no linkrot", thereby missing the point of the template. "Cleanup-bare URLs" is therefore the one I find to be easier to understand; it clearly says that "this article needs cleanup because it has bare URLs", which is a much better description of the problem. The hyphen probably should be a slash (as would probably be good for the whole {{cleanup- family), but that's a totally different discussion. jcgoble3 (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right that "linkrot" isn't the best name. As you can see, there are arguments both ways. I wonder if it wouldn't be better for the template to be simply called "bare URLs"? (or a redirect from that title could be created and then used by Twinkle?) — This, that and the other (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Linkrot}} is already a redirect to {{Cleanup-bare URLs}}.—John Cline (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no doubting that, John. We are discussing which name should be used by Twinkle for this template. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

My comment is indeed the result of misreading the thread. I've stricken it to emphasis its extraneous nature.—John Cline (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If any user runs AWB on that article it will be change to {{Cleanup-bare URLs}}, that would be double the work. I suggest keeping the name linkrot in the "Tag"-meny, but that Twinkle actually tags with {{Cleanup-bare URLs}}. (t) Josve05a (c) 00:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that AWB does that; it's a pity it doesn't do it more consistently. What I really think should happen here is that the tag in question should be renamed to something more sensible. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

At Page Curation it's listed in the menu of tags as "Bare URLs", while at Twinkle it goes under the name "Link rot", which is confusing for editors who use both. I don't feel strongly about which name we use but I'd like those two systems to be consistent. PamD 08:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC) clarified 13:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Go to user talk when reverting pending changes

When a page is reverted with the pending changes "Revert changes" button, Twinkle should give a nice link to go to the user's talk page with the page name pre-filled, like it does when "real" rollback is used. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll look into this. I only have reviewer rights on testwiki, so I hope our setup is not too different. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Hm, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to here. When I clicked "Reject changes" I seemed to get sent back to the article itself. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

A link from the confirmation page, I mean. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Being hopelessly inexperienced with Pending Changes, I will need step-by-step instructions of every click you are making :) — This, that and the other (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

So you want to see a talk page link even before you have made the revert? That seems like a strange order in which to do things. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I know that's kind of strange, but after the revert is made, there's nowhere to put the talk page link. The other alternative is to make the user's talk page pop open in a new window after the revert, the way that it does when you use Twinkle's own rollback to revert someone. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Sorry Jack, I missed your reply. Yes, a popup wouldn't be a bad idea, although I'm hesitant to add another one. I'll see what is possible here and think about the best way to implement it. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Bracketbot warnings

Not sure if this is a good place to ask, because it's not strictly related to Twinkle, just to the warnings we issue. Bracketbot has been doing a lot of heavy lifting lately with letting people know when the Wiki syntax is broken by their edit. I just wondered what other people are doing as far as vandalism warnings when BB has already been to the user talk page. Should we consider the user already warned, or should we drop another warning at the same level? Elizium23 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I give them a warning just as if I would if BracketBot didn't post at all. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Bracketbot warnings

Not sure if this is a good place to ask, because it's not strictly related to Twinkle, just to the warnings we issue. Bracketbot has been doing a lot of heavy lifting lately with letting people know when the Wiki syntax is broken by their edit. I just wondered what other people are doing as far as vandalism warnings when BB has already been to the user talk page. Should we consider the user already warned, or should we drop another warning at the same level? Elizium23 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I give them a warning just as if I would if BracketBot didn't post at all. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

not completing AFD nominations correctly.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anima_Xavier - see the bot comment. Using Chrome. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The user Greedo8, who was adding another nomination to the page at the time, edit-conflicted with you, removing your nomination and overwriting it with his/her new nomination. So it wasn't your fault at all. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle warning bug

The article mentioned in the edit-summary does not match the article metioned in the warning. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This was caused by someone accidentally editing the {{uw-ew}} template (diff). Callanecc: just letting you know that this happened. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much This, that and the other. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

CSD - T3

The wording this script offers for WP:CSD#T3 is quite broad:

Templates that are not used in any useful fashion

but the wording of the actual criterion is much stricter:

Templates that are substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template

Can the Twinkle version be tightened up, to more closely reflect the latter, please? Perhaps:

Templates that are substantial or hardcoded duplications of another template

Is this something editors such as I can do? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure... Submit a pull request on GitHub ( https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle — more specifically near: https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle/blob/master/modules/twinklespeedy.js#L676 ). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm neither a coder nor a github user. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Request submitted on your behalf in Pull request 211. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: It's rarely helpful to ask users to submit pull requests. I find that if users are comfortable with that kind of thing, they will go ahead and submit a GitHub pull request themselves. Otherwise it's best to do it for them.

To both of you: Andy's point is quite valid. However, there is more here than meets the eye. Both the T3 options available in Twinkle place the same template, {{db-t3}}. The first one, currently called "Duplicate templates or hardcoded instances", requires the user to input the name of a template to which the template being nominated is redundant. The second option (the one in question here) offers a free-text input field, allowing the user to explain how the template meets the criteria at WP:T3. I'm not sure what needs to be done to sort out this poorly-described pair of options. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hrmm.. Hadn't noticed it was in there twice, was just making the actual request verbatim for what Andy asked for simply changing the wording. Perhaps lines 675-687 should just be chopped? What was the purpose of adding this section where the user needs to put in a rationale changing the purpose of T3? I'm sure there was a discussion about it somewhere? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Error in CSD Log

Hello. I've created the CSD log for my Twinkle module, as can be seen User:Kkj11210/CSD log. When I was reviewing the log today, I noticed that the the eleventh entry WSP Global has been logged as been tagged with G7, even though I haven't, and my inaction can be seen in the article history. Please advise. Thanks. KJ ^{click here} 00:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no error here. First of all, the history for WSP Global is at //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WSP_Global&action=history, not at //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSP_Global:_Revision_history. What happened is that you did indeed tag WSP Global for deletion under G7, Xoloz deleted it, and then Svgalbertian moved WSP Group to WSP Global. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah that makes sense. Thanks. KJ ^{click here} 01:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Gadgets Focus the cursor in the search bar on loading the Main Page

Hello, Twinkle is not listed in my gadgets. --ECHReditor (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume because your account is too new. Seeing that you marked your account as retired I assume I won't need to do anything about it. Amalthea2 (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I am just semi-retired because I will not contribute too much to this Wiki. I only needed Twinkle for talkbacks but I think I can use the template as well. --86.213.218.116 (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback

Please may we have {{Teahouse talkback}} added to the talkback template deployment? Fiddle Faddle 09:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is available under "Noticeboard notification". Perhaps not the most obvious place for it, but it's there. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Good heavens. I'd never even think to look there! And, now I have, and it is there. Again "good heavens!" Thank you Fiddle Faddle 13:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)