Today: Sunday 13 June 2021 , 2:02 am


Village pump (technical)

Last updated 22 Day , 7 hour 9 Views

In this page talks about ( Village pump (technical) ) It was sent to us on 21/05/2021 and was presented on 21/05/2021 and the last update on this page on 21/05/2021

Your Comment

Enter code
{{village pump page header1=Technical2=The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia. Bug reports and feature requests should be made in Phabricator (see how to report a bug). Bugs with security implications should be reported differently (see how to report security bugs).
Newcomers to the technical village pump are encouraged to read these guidelines prior to posting here. If you want to report a JavaScript error, please follow this guideline. Questions about MediaWiki in general should be posted at the MediaWiki support desk. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for five days.
archive = Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive %(counter)d
algo = old(5d)
counter = 186
maxarchivesize = 500k
minthreadsleft = 4
minthreadstoarchive = 1
archiveheader =
Category:Wikipedia village pump
Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed
Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links
Category:Pages that should not be manually archived

A blank line is being erroneously added or removed

Is there a bug that causes a stray blank line to be added between the last paragraph of the lead and the first subheader of any page? In this edit and this edit, I did not place my cursor on that part of the edit window, but someone else edited other parts of the top section of those articles a few hours before I did. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Did you make a section edit of the lead section with a tool saying §ion=0? I think a section edit will automatically end the section with one blank line as the only blankspace, while a full page edit normally leaves whatever the editor did. Your first diff did not add a newline but remove a space. The second diff added a newline. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was a section edit. Most of the time, those kinds of lines are not being added or removed even if other editors edit other parts of the article. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

: When you click the link to edit a whole page at once, the edit box is filled with the wikitext of the page, then all whitespace (spaces, newlines, tabs and one or two other characters) is stripped from the bottom, and one newline is added; finally you are given control of the editing form. When you click , the contents of the edit box are sent back, all whitespace is stripped from the bottom of the text, one newline is appended and it is saved. Any extra whitespace within the page is preserved as it stands. The effect of this is that no matter what you attempt to add to the bottom of a page in the way of whitespace, the bottom of the page ends "cleanly", but the gaps above section headings might be over-large if there were many blank lines in the source.

:When you click the link to edit a single section (or one section including all descendant subsections), the edit box is filled with the wikitext of the section, then all whitespace is stripped from the bottom, and one newline is added; finally you are given control of the editing form. When you click , the contents of the edit box are sent back, all whitespace is stripped from the bottom of the text, and it is inserted into the page with two newlines appended. The effect of this is that no matter what you attempt to add to the bottom of a section in the way of whitespace, the section as saved will have one blank line between the end of the text and the next heading or subheading.

:The gadget " " allows you to edit the lead in the same manner as for any normal section. --
19:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

:"Why this would be bad" is already implicit in what I said above: if you use a link inside something applying an explicit title to a span (or whatever) then the link's auto-generated and usually harmless but not actually very useful title clobbers that of the span (at least while one is hovering over the link, which in many cases may be the entire contents of the span).
20:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

:: Wasn't sure what you meant at first, but I redid the example, and found it working:
(in Chrome on Windows). I'm not sure I would describe this as a title collision; rather, it's normal cascade precedence at work: a later element or CSS instructions overriding what an earlier one did "wins". Are there problems with this? I'm aware that just because it is spec-permissible and should work fine doesn't mean that it does work properly in all major browsers. Some of them have bugs galore.
01:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

::::I think it's gadgets or other script at play, since I also have different results, and use lots of that stuff. My testing so far with popup previews and the like is that "Enable page previews (quick previews of a topic while reading a page)" (under Preferences > Appearance > Reading preferences) is that the page preview overrides the tooltips, which is both expected (since it's injecting stuff with JS) and desirable (since it adds more functionality than a tooltip). Will still need to see what it does with other things like "Navigation popups" (under Preferences > Gadgets). I don't think this "hack" will be of any use for the template I'm working on now, but it might be of some use in templates (like some inline cleanup/dispute templates) that do more "fixed content" kind of things are are not dealing with user-supplied links.
20:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

::Regardless, thanks for the notes. I'd more or less expected that this wasn't fixable at all, so the fact that there's at least some kind of a workaround is worth looking into, if for no other reason than to understand what it's doing and what issues can arise. E.g., we may have finally fixed the accessibility problem with tooltips generally, after several years of various, intermittent tweaking approaches; see Template:Tooltip/testcases. Wouldn't've been possible without multiple approaches to working around the problem, and lots of testing, and simply time. Actually, that test page is why I'm here asking about the above: One of the test cases (of using a link inside the template) actually produces the unusual result of better output for screen-reader users than for everyone else, because the accessibility bypass for the title content isn't subject to the link's auto-title overriding span's context-specific title. Heh.
19:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

That being said, autoconfirmed XOR extendedconfirmed is generally not true, it is possible to OR or AND these groups - you could just show multiple lines- something like "You are X, Y" and only include each of them based on if you are in the group (i.e. don't worry about "hiding" the you are autoconfirmed part when showing you are exc). —
19:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

: , we point a lot of beginners to the access level page whenever we mention an access level, and "do I have X level of access?" is a question I suspect a large portion of visitors to the page have, so it would seem user-unfriendly not to give it to them there. Yeah, Special:Preferences does have it, too, but it only shows what you do have rather than what you don't, so there's a possibility someone not EC who goes there might get confused or at least have to work a bit to figure it out.

:What I'd like is just a way to display "You are not extended confirmed" to non EC users. It sounds like I may need to make an interface request to do that?
19:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

:::Could start with something like "A Registered Editor" to show even the newest people they are "something"! —
19:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

::::Hmm, that seems possible, but it'd require it to be together in a clump rather than sectioned. I think I'll go ahead and make the edit request (hopefully it doesn't distract from the other open interface-protected request, which is much more urgent). That box might be useful in some other circumstances, though, so if anyone wants to create it I'm sure we could find places to put it. Thanks for the help!
User talk:Xaosflux
22:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Had not tested as sysop, sorry. What does
look like to you? (it's probably just me screwing up CSS) —
garbage like this
trash like this
Here you see both texts in the same place because there is no background color to cover up the underlying text. —
19:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh my word , I knew someone around here would have the answer. THANK YOU, you are awesome, I will start testing away! Cheers! Shearonink (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

: Three tildes (~~~) give you your signature without timestamp:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deisenbe (talk • contribs) 12:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Few people use ye olde vertical citations these days; they make the edit view of many articles incredibly difficult to read, with the odd word of text lost in an endless stream of citation lines. So I'm not sure how much sympathy I have. But reverting, quoting WP:CITEVAR can work, if you catch them before other changes are made. I'm not sure there is any bot, but there are certainly plenty of cite-bandits using automated editing tools. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I am confused by your statement "they make the edit view of many articles incredibly difficult to read". With what intention or under what circumstances would you be reading the edit view? I thought one looked at edit view only when editing, not reading. For me it makes the edit view much easier, not to read, but to edit. deisenbe (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

:It's about "reading" the edit view to find the right place to edit when you don't want to edit a reference. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

That makes no sense. If you aren't wanting to edit the citation, spreading it out vertically should make it easier to find the actual prose text. That's in addition to making the citations themselves easier to edit.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Khajidha (talk • contribs) 20:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess most users rarely edit existing references. They take up a lot more of the edit area in vertical format than horizontal so you can see less surrounding wikitext at a time and you need more scrolling to get past them. The first syntax highlighter at WP:HILITE writes parameter names in bold. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

That's certainly true for "most users". Unfortunately there is a small but prolific minority of drive-by cite-bandits who specialize in this, so one does see a lot of it. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A citation collapsed in the above manner is more readable if there are spaces before pipes, like:
cite book editor-link=Robert W. Watson editor-first=Robert W. editor-last=Watson title=White House Studies Compendium volume=2 first=Harold last=Holzer authorlink=Harold Holzer isbn=9781600215339 chapter=New Glory for Old Glory: A Lincoln-Era Tradition Reborn url= year=2007 publisher=Nova Publishers pages=315–318, at p. 316
But if you really want to declutter editing windows, use , or This insource search finds 54k articles which have a category which starts "companies", but will not find articles under for example. (Maybe a regex search will have better luck.) Petscan will let you do some much heavier searches, such as all articles below category Companies by industry which took and claimed 2,451,273 results but only returned the first 10,000 (including some that clearly should not be included – Common carp??). Another route is to see which articles use the template. This query on toolforge quotes 76,711 – which is probably a realistic subset of the larger companies. I suspect that you need to work from database dumps or build scripts which recurse down the category tree or maybe define a more specific remit. Maybe ask at Portal:Companies or look at their category tree? — GhostInTheMachine User talk:GhostInTheMachinetalk to me 23:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The category system in the English Wikipedia is a huge mess. Searching for all articles in all subcategories is producing random nonsense because people don't stay within the scope of categories across different levels. Common carp -> :Category:Commercial fish -> :Category:Fishing industry -> ... I guess somewhere there. --mfb (talk) 06:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

: Definitely, it's a mess for companies. Works great for living people, though. Luckily, my tool will still work fine with a few false positives. I'm using the strategy of choosing a high level category and recusing down - it seems to be good enough for my purposes. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Missing revisions ?

Hello, I would like to know when the page "Rules to consider" has been created. More precisely, I would like to know the origin of the rule "Cite your sources" enunciated in this page.
I've checked the history page, but, the first revision (19:42, 19 October 2001), i.e., the very first version of the page, is strangely described as a −14,726‎ bytes text removal.
In the "Nostalgia" version of Wikipedia, the same first revision (19:42, 19 October 2001) is described as a +25,646 bytes text creation and flagged "imported".
Furthermore, I've found the page "Wikipedia:Cite your sources debate". Its first revision is dated "19:58, 5 July 2001" and it is a copy of the content of a page named "RulesToConsider" which no longer exists.
Are some revisions missing in the Wikipedia database ? The very old ones, maybe ?
--ContributorQ (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
At least some of the answer is in the edit history of . But that may not be the whole story, the numbers still don't add up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 23:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Some of 2001 is missing. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. The Wayback Machine has a 16 April 2001 version which is much shorter and does not include "Cite your sources". It is their only snapshot from 2001. PrimeHunter (User talk:PrimeHuntertalk) 23:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I've imported the old RulesToConsider edits from the August 2001 database dump ... and they happen to contain the "cite your sources" proposal! I then history-merged the "Rules to consider" and "RulesToConsider" pages ... I usually don't like huge gaps in page history (there are no edits from August 2001, only two from September, and there's probably missing history from October), but this is such a historically significant page that I think making the history accessible is more important than anything else. I've also made the history complete at Wikipedia:Cite your sources debate. Re the wonky byte counts, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 184#How were 50,000 bytes lost in 2001?. GrahamUser talk:Graham87
06:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Tools for promotional editing

Can someone point me towards the existing tools for detecting promotional editing? Sam at Megaputer (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting an edit to Template:Infobox name module

Hello, I am looking for help from someone who is able to edit templates. The problem is that Template:Infobox name module does not apply the appropriate Chinese language tags (zh-Hant for traditional Chinese, zh-Hans for simplified Chinese, or zh for just Chinese) to the corresponding parameters. See the most recent section on Template talk:Infobox name module regarding missing lang tags. I am unfamiliar with how to edit templates, but it seems like this can be fixed relatively easily, considering that the Japanese and Korean parameters of this template do indeed tag the language correctly.
You can see an example of the effect this has at this permalink to my sandbox. Notice that both traditional and simplified Chinese currently look the same in the infobox, when in reality they should look different. The Japanese and Korean are rendered correctly. I hope this is the correct place to post this, please let me know if not. Thanks, ChromeGames923 (talk · Special:Contributions/ChromeGames923contribs) 07:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Popular Pages by Project (For Dummies?)

Hi, I'm interested in making useful assessments for articles within Wikipedia:WikiProject Guyana (and for working on said articles). I found Wikipedia:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject but Guyana (or it's parent project South America) aren't on that list. It also seems like the list managers are inactive as well. Then after digging though a bunch more pages "kept for historical purposes"... I found User:Community Tech bot/Popular pages but it seems like maybe it's not the right venue for lay-users?
(I'm pretty sure it will look like Jonestown!!!!! then everything else making up a tiny fraction of pageviews, but I'd love to be surprised.)
Anyway, is it possible to get a pageview popularity listing or something like that for Project Guyana? Is it out there already? If not, is there an appropriate channel for making such a request? Cheers, Estheim (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I've added WikiProject Guyana to the Community Tech bot config. Next time the bot runs (which will be in early January) it should fill out Wikipedia:WikiProject Guyana/Popular pages with a report similar to that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tunisia/Popular pages. the wub
10:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Marvelous! Thank you so much :D Estheim (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


Is it possible to copy structure (two boxes under image) of this template to other? Eurohunter (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
What is your context? --
rose64 🌹 (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to mke own look like template with custom text. Eurohunter (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

:That is not context. Where would you use it, what purpose would it serve, why is the existing template not suitable? --
rose64 🌹 (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

:: I working on invitation template and I would like to have same structure (two boxes under image with custom text). Eurohunter (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


There are no Comments yet

last seen
Most vists