Francis szpiner DYK
Hi Izno, we have noticed there is slight but serious fault in the DYK of Francis Szpiner. The mayor should have been wikilinked to the district. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Paradise Chronicle: I have made the edit I think was requested. Izno (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, let's keep it that way. Uff. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
January 2022
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Category:GA-Class Glacier articles, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Yodas henchman (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yodas henchman Though I know this was a template and a likely premature one at that, review MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do#description. Izno (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
How we will see unregistered users
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. /Johan (WMF)
18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
In case you were curious (WP:AE requests by year)
I corrected the 2019 numbers and counted it up going back to 2011, just for the sake of my own curiosity: [1] [2] [3]. Volunteer Marek 07:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Your redirection of Template:New message
This was an unwise redirection. I have reverted it. The template {{New discussion}} has different syntax, and the two are not compatible. Please do not make this edit again without forming consensus for it, at the very leats on the talk page where I have started a discussion. Your redirection broke certainly my own talk page. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Timtrent For which I thanked you, since yes, that would break the using pages. I have subsequently submitted the template to WP:TFD. Izno (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have placed conditional support on the merge discussion. My support or opposition depends on solving the syntax issues without breaking talk pages FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Shahid Kazemi Dam
Hi, Please edit Shahid Kazemi Dam. Its information is incorrect. You can follow the correct information from the following links:
- Kazemi Bukan Dam
- Shahīd Kāz̧emī-ye Būkān
- Kazemi Bukan Dam [Persian Wiki]
- Shahid Kazemi Dam (West Azarbaijan province)
Thanks. Masoud bukani (talk)
- @Masoud bukani: You can try asking for help on the talk page, or possibly on the talk page of a related WikiProject like WT:WikiProject Lakes. --Izno (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For hiding some revisions that we shall not mention. They were just absolutely awful and it pains me to know there are people on the internet like that. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC) |
Merge close for Template:DRN archive bottom
Did you have a plan for how to do this merge? See TFD. The DRN template has a closing div, then a table close, and then another closing div. The archive bottom template just has a closing div. I have reverted the redirect of the former to the latter, because it breaks syntax where it is used. I'm thinking that a change needs to be made to {{DRN archive top}} at the same time that the revert is done, removing the table opener and one of the div openers. Also pinging Primefac, whose redirect edit I reverted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, my apologies, I didn't see the second
</div>
; downsides of editing late at night. I'd have to dig in to why there is a table start in {{DRN archive top}} before I removed it outright. Primefac (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)- @Jonesey95 and Primefac: I was just being lazy and hoped that Jonesey wouldn't find me when I redirected it the first time (see how that worked out?!).
- I think we can get rid of the outer div with the margin: 0; that looks like an ancient browser bug. We cannot get rid of the table (or some other container element; it really should be a div also) while also retaining collapsing. So maybe this TFD should be reconsidered/DRVd. (I am not personally a fan of adding a parameter to {{end}} just to allow collapsing or w/e.)
- Alternatively, DRN could remove the collapsibility, which is generally unnecessary in other fora (DRV being the only other exception I know of that routinely collapses their archives--maybe these two can sync their templates). Izno (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:POTD row/styles.css
Template:POTD row/styles.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
BLP
Hi! You might want to look at this: [4] Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Martina Navratilova. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sod25 (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this tidy-up edit. Can you please close the caption tag that is opened near the top of the table? It's leaving new unclosed tag errors in a few pages. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: I was chasing a lint error that was present on a page due to the other function in the module and obviously got distracted poking at the one I shouldn't have been investigating. I will see what's happening. Izno (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Dealing with troublesome new user
I hope it's okay to approach you out of the blue - I selected you at random from the list of "Recently Active Admins" in the hope of getting an independent view.
The background to my request is: User Hooaos is new (87 total edits), and has created 10 articles. Six of those have already been deleted, mostly for Copyright violation. I tagged two of them for deletion. Their Talk page (User talk:Hooaos) is full of advice and warnings from editors about this problem, but there is no response. It is not even clear whether Hooaos has even seen them.
So that is where I would appreciate your advice - how can we impress on them the importance of respecting copyright? And if necessary, what steps can be taken to stop them?--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Gronk Oz, it's fine to approach someone randomly, but you might have bad luck in the lottery.
- This kind of case, if warnings are not sufficient to stop the disruption, usually either ends up on an uninvolved admin's desk like today, or ends up at WP:ANI (because single admins can be unresponsive in their own ways, especially for random requests which may not be exactly in that admin's wheelhouse), usually citing WP:Communication is required. There's also WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, but that doesn't look applicable for this editor from what I can see; very few/none of the edits are tagged as "mobile edit". I almost pinged Moonriddengirl and Moneytrees as being more specialized for copyright violations, but decided against it after a cursory review indicated that many recent edits had not been reverted and accordingly were not obviously copyright violations.
- You can take that as a suggestion to go to ANI or to continue monitoring the editor's edits yourself, either way. I would not want to issue a block for what I saw, but I admit I also took a cursory glance rather than in-depth review. Izno (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Category:Federal Republic of Central America–United States relations
Hey, Izno, need some help to fix the categorization. The former name, Bilateral relations of Federal Republic of Central America, was moved to the current name still shows up. Need some help removing the old name and have the current name included without it being manually added as I did. Thanks. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- WikiCleanerMan I assume it's from {{Foo–Bar relations category}}. You're going to need to get consensus for your naming I would guess, since it doesn't follow the pattern already established. Izno (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- I see. I've decided to ask JJMC89 whose bot account moved the category. But since you mentioned it, where does consensus come from for the naming, out of curiosity? The talk page for Foo-bar relations? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Transcluded table as list/example table
Template:Transcluded table as list/example table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that the collapsing broke on User:MZMcBride/Archive index, so I tracked down your edit removing it. Thank you for updating the documentation at Wikipedia:NavFrame, but I kind of wish we'd updated the code on wiki pages prior to removing the functionality. It looks like hundreds of user pages are impacted based on search results. Was this removal discussed anywhere? Are there any ongoing efforts to fix this up?
Also, it took me a minute to realize that when the documentation says "mw-collapsible (mw-collapsed)" it means that "mw-collapsed" is optional, not that it uses the literal string "(mw-collapsed)" with parentheses. Tricky. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- @MZMcBride: User:IznoBot#Task 3 was authorized to fix old uses of the display:none variant (for which you may review the BRFA where I discussed what I could do to make stuff Better, including the broader 'fix everything'), and the NavFrame removal effort generally was tracked at MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do#NavFrame.
- Yes, the documentation is tricky, but I wanted it to be sufficiently succinct. Improvements welcome of course.
- As a note, this has been removed for just about 6 months and you are only the second user to ask about it. Which I more or less see as a successful migration.
- You are of course free to automate a better fix than I provided, but I will not be able to help with that. Izno (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Please fix the coordinsert feature
Module talk:Coordinates#coordinsert feature broken. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
TemplateStyles in wrapper template
How do I add correctly Template:Infobox television episode/styles.css to the wrapper Template:Infobox Futurama episode (for the |headerstyle=
value)? Gonnym (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Gonnym, in Template:Infobox television episode,
|child templatestyles = {{{templatestyles|}}}
, in Template:Infobox Futurama episode the typical|templatestyles = Template:Infobox Futurama episode/styles.css
. IznoPublic (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)- Thanks! While I was doing that I inspected the page and it seemed that even without doing this the wrapper templates are already inheriting "ib-tv-episode". Is this intended or a bug (because for this current use-case it worked out good)? Gonnym (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: Required to make the parent TemplateStyles work of course. I guess that wants for ensuring you can add the child's class as well in case you are worried about having two different infoboxes on a page e.g. in the parent set
|bodyclass=ib-tv-episode {{{bodyclass|}}}
and then setting|bodyclass=ib-futurama-episode
in the child. That's currently explained in the {{sidebar}} documentation correctly. Izno (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: Required to make the parent TemplateStyles work of course. I guess that wants for ensuring you can add the child's class as well in case you are worried about having two different infoboxes on a page e.g. in the parent set
- Thanks! While I was doing that I inspected the page and it seemed that even without doing this the wrapper templates are already inheriting "ib-tv-episode". Is this intended or a bug (because for this current use-case it worked out good)? Gonnym (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Mobile-friendly columns
Hello. I hope this is not too much to ask (if it's, never mind me!). I have been reusing some of the neat designs in the Wikipedia:Signpost to create a Movement Strategy updates page, but I don't seem to be able to figure out how to make the page into 3 columns (on desktop) versus the friendly single column (on mobile). Would you be kindly able to just orient me to the page where the correct code is? FYI, what I'm using for columns right now is the unideal <div style="width:33%> (here) --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC).
- Abbad (WMF), there's kind of a mix of things going on.
- Part one: If you take a look at the HTML source, you see
<style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r997986370">.mw-parser-output .signpost-main-page-body{box-sizing:border-box;column-width:15em;column-gap:5em;max-width:70em;margin:15px auto;padding:0 2vw}</style>
, which indicates the presence of WP:TemplateStyles. - Part two: Given the class name, if you take a look at the wikisource you quickly see Template:Signpost-main-page-body-begin which holds the templatestyles invocation and the start of the applicable div. You could also have gotten to that template being the holder by using Special:ExpandTemplates on WP:Signpost. The templatestyles invocation is like templates in that it can drop the Template: prefix and still call a template page e.g. this one is calling Template:Signpost-main-page-body-begin/styles.css. Lastly, given the simplicity of this CSS (just a direct element application), it's not strictly necessary to use templatestyles.
- Part three is the actual CSS of relevance from that block, which is
column-width:15em;
. This is what creates the columns. You can learn about these at any old CSS helper website; my preference is Mozilla Development Network (MDN). (You can Google for other details.) The gist is that the column-width rule specifies the minimum size of a column. If N columns of minimum size cannot fit on the page, N-1 columns will be tried, and etc. - Part four is the styles being added to the helper templates. Back in the HTML source of WP:Signpost, you'll see
<div class="plainlinks" style="-webkit-column-break-inside: avoid;page-break-inside: avoid;break-inside: avoid;clear:both; padding:7px 0;">
, the most-relevant CSS being-webkit-column-break-inside: avoid;page-break-inside: avoid;break-inside: avoid;
. The first bit there is Webkit specific and isn't necessary in this day and age (cleaning the Signpost CSS up is on the to do list). So,page-break-inside: avoid;break-inside: avoid;
basically tells the browser that it does not want these divs to flow their content into the next available space to keep pages balanced (which in a multi-column world would be the next column), it wants everything inside to remain in the same column it was assigned. (Browsers have some algorithm to say 'this is too unbalanced to avoid flowing content into another column, so I'm going to flow it over', but that's an implementation detail.) - Part five: since you want headers for your columns, what you're going to have to do is declare three divs, each with the break-avoid CSS, and then place your individual elements, including the headers, in each of those.
- That's how that page is implemented. If I were to use a layout technology here given your desire for distinct columns and headers, it would probably be CSS flex (guide at CSS Tricks). It is easier to do this version of layout with TemplateStyles because a media query based on the width of the viewport makes it easier to handle the low-resolution case, which of course is not possible in inline CSS. Flexbox can still do it without the media query; you would have to flex-wrap to wrap and then assign some 'absolute' widths to your columns, which may not look perfect at different resolutions.
- There is also CSS grid, but a) I have a lot less experience with that, and b) I think it might be unnecessary for what you want to do. (And you would probably need a media query there.) Izno (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Izno Thank you so much for this wonderful explanation (and I'm really sorry to have taken such a whole lot of your time to write this thorough walkthrough). Although my technical knowledge is limited, as someone who mostly sticks to content editing, your explanations were help understand what each part of the code is exactly doing. While I did have to refer to colleague several times for help, I was able to set this up, which uses flex box layout according to your recommendation. This seems to solve the essential problem of adapting into 1 column om mobile screens. I know, however, that it may have not been perfectly implemented (with max width code that makes the columns look bad in some cases), and if you feel it's a misinterpretation of your recommendations, I'm happy to change it. I also recognize that I already took a lot of your time - I can totally make the inquiries elsewhere --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC).
- @Abbad (WMF), looks reasonable. I have some minor comments:
- Use a min-width media query (everything at this resolution and above) rather than a max-width media query (everything at this resolution and below). This usually requires slightly less CSS to implement whatever you're trying to implement (i.e., you don't need the rule about flex-direction at all). I've implemented this just to show you the CSS decrease. (Much older browsers also threw out CSS inside media queries, which meant that it was better to fallback to just the one column when doing a size query, but I think all of those are no longer supported by MediaWiki.)
- For wider application, use more semantic names than "box". This helps avoid arbitrary name collisions and allows users to do what they will. Not a big deal here since I guess you anticipate this being used only in the one place. (I try to keep in mind that these kinds of things tend to find other homes on other wikis, so YMMV on how much time you want to spend on naming.) Usually our names end up being the name of the template or page on which you can find the TemplateStyles, or sometimes an abbreviation of such.
- This could use a little more testing at different resolutions. Stuff gets super-squished on the way down to 600px from desktop size. Our usual arbitrary number here is 720px, which matches a cutoff or two on the technical side, but you can experiment as you wish. This also might be fixed by plugging at flex-wrap as earlier mentioned and assigning min-widths to your boxes, an example of which can be found on mw:MediaWiki. (You can use Inspect element in your browser to see what is going on there.)
- I see you've added flex: 1 in a few places; I might suggest moving that definition into the sheet and then giving those divs names (probably "column" or similar).
- Consider renaming it to either be a subpage of the Movement Strategy page (you will need to adjust the TemplateStyles tag to have a colon after the first quotation mark) or at least removing the -begin in the template name (with similar adjustment).
- I think your "justify-content: space-between" really wants to be "gap: xem".
- I am happy to answer questions. Izno (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Izno Thank you again :) This is great. I have tried to integrate your comments:
- I find this inversion very helpful. I wasn't too happy with the amount of "compression" that the 3 columns underwent with the max width before turning into one. I'm going to keep the apparently "standard" width of 720px. I'm just curious about why, with any number or resolution, there's never a middle stage of 2 columns on the page (instead of either 1 or 3). Is that option skipped due to the lack of "symmetry" with 2/3 columns?
- I've replaced this "box" with a (not so creative) "MSBox" alternative. If you think it doesn't make sense as a name, feel free to let me know.
- I have fixed the "flex: 1", also replaced with "Column" per advice.
- I ended up removing the -begin, only because it seemed to be the easier solution (I only added it, in the first place, according what I saw on the Signpost templates). If you think it's still a problematic namespace, I'm happy to move it to be a Strategy subpage.
- Replacing with the "gap: xem" is exactly what I was looking for. Finally it looks a bit orderly. This help is much appreciated!
- --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC).
- @Abbad (WMF): It's because CSS Columns (as in the SP implementation) allow for that. Flex does not. The fundamental thing is that in Flex (or Grid, or any prior layout technology besides columns), you have to put your content in separate containers to lay it out; right now, you have 3. As I said, you could do something like is done on MediaWiki wiki if you wanted to have a second column at some point, but your third container would be laid out as a single column. See also earlier explanation about how CSS columns work (which essentially have one container that does all the layout management itself). Izno (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Abbad (WMF), looks reasonable. I have some minor comments:
- Izno Thank you so much for this wonderful explanation (and I'm really sorry to have taken such a whole lot of your time to write this thorough walkthrough). Although my technical knowledge is limited, as someone who mostly sticks to content editing, your explanations were help understand what each part of the code is exactly doing. While I did have to refer to colleague several times for help, I was able to set this up, which uses flex box layout according to your recommendation. This seems to solve the essential problem of adapting into 1 column om mobile screens. I know, however, that it may have not been perfectly implemented (with max width code that makes the columns look bad in some cases), and if you feel it's a misinterpretation of your recommendations, I'm happy to change it. I also recognize that I already took a lot of your time - I can totally make the inquiries elsewhere --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC).
Highlighting rows on info pages
Hello. I noticed that row highlighting stopped working at URLs such as <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Izno&action=info#mw-pageinfo-watchers>. I tracked down the change to <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.css&diff=1041451530&oldid=1041445295>. I liked this feature and I think it's used somewhat often. I don't understand why it was removed. Can you please restore it? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- MZMcBride No, I will not be restoring it. We do not add CSS to Common.css for a feature used externally only a total of 230 times since its introduction nearly a decade ago, and the general behavior related to the table of contents is basically not how any other table of contents works. Izno (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Izno. I don't know why you think you get to determine what level of usage determines what gets included in MediaWiki:Common.css. The feature existed for a decade and has plenty of usage, as you note. Was there discussion about its removal? Did you ask other editors or gain consensus for the removal of this longstanding feature? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- @MZMcBride: I did not. However, in the past several months, you are the first and only user to ask the question. It seems entirely to be a personal preference on your part; you were the originator of it (yes, I did my homework before removing it) when there were a bare 2 people total involved in the original consensus discussion. Today, if you had requested, I would have personally opposed and I am fairly certain most others would have opposed. We do not add personal preferences to Common.css, especially when they present inconsistent UI for the price of a slower load time for everyone who doesn't care or doesn't know about it for the already-obscure info function. Plenty of use? It is used less than just about every widely-used template, despite existing for that long. And that's even if people realize what they've done when they've linked to a section of the info page.
- As I said, I will not revert myself. MediaWiki talk:Common.css is available for a consensus discussion. Izno (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for the info.
- You seem to be operating under the idea that people should be closely following and examining your edits to MediaWiki:Common.css and reporting issues to you quickly, which seems pretty wild. Most users are unfamiliar with that page and even users who are familiar with that page don't typically keep such a close eye on it.
- It seems worth noting that you're relying only on locally indexed results, maybe there are thousands of uses of this functionality elsewhere.
- The "inconsistent UI" argument doesn't seem to hold up when examined in context: this styling is a clone of the styling we use for clicked references, that's where I got the idea from.
- With minification and compression, I doubt any system would be able to measure a difference in load time, tho I would be fascinated if you or someone else could demonstrate a load time impact from ~10 bytes or whatever.
- That said, you're right that we can more narrowly target this styling, I'll attempt that. In the worst case I can re-add this feature to my personal site styling, but I like being able to highlight specific values to others in a fairly large page easily. Ideally we would have this same row-highlighting feature for wikitables generally, but we unfortunately don't output stable row markers currently.
- Regarding highlighting generally, it's a fairly common feature. Google and Chrome(?) have been doing it with inline text using a URL fragment: <https://i.imgur.com/SijUkEL.png>. But, of course, they didn't have to seek your permission to do so. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Where it holds up is relative to how we deal with tables generally and headers generally. You will not find it used outside of references.
It seems worth noting that you're relying only on locally indexed results, maybe there are thousands of uses of this functionality elsewhere.
Doesn't hold water, to use your phrase. We make technical decisions based on what is accessible to us, not some arbitrary infinity of possibilities outside that.reporting issues to you quickly
No, I am operating under the assumption that it would have shown up in one of the usual places. My talk page from someone chasing 'where did it go?' (oh, hello), or WP:VPT if someone wanted it but had no idea where it went, or MediaWiki talk:Common.css, where one would expect one of the more savvy users to end up, or even the help desk where someone could have done the necessary research. Not a whisper has reached these ears for 6 months.performance generally
I am trying to get to Common.css Zero. Common.css styling that can be shown to be widely in use trivially (as with e.g. our general HTML styling) of course won't go anywhere, but the more savings the better. Maybe someday it will have just the handful of actually-common things (as in, nothing page-specific, nothing template-specific). I have many tasks to file ahead of me I suspect. :eyeroll:highlighting generally
Yes, and Google both has hundreds of engineers working for it and something of an enterprising-monopoly on browsing. You'll note it hasn't been implemented directly in any other browser. ;) Izno (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)- What a blast from the past. This was part of a much larger effort to deprecate MZ's popular "watcher" tool, that eventually was put into action=info as part of bugzilla:39957, and then given a unique CSS ID so it could be highlighted with bugzilla:44252 to win back some of the discoverability the tool had: a link that just shows you the number of watchers versus a table with tons of information. And up until 2018, it was prominently linked in the article history, so it was probably well used. I'm pretty sure more people commented on the highlighting thing on VPT or elsewhere, so I don't think it's fair to say only 2 people participated in this discussion :)
- I think it is both reasonable for this feature to exist (highlighting specific information on action=info when linked) and to not want it in sitewide Common.css. This seems like a good candidate for a subtask of T71550 (no idea why we didn't do that in 2013!). Legoktm (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, what link to what VPT discussion, the one not featured prominently in the edit summary to Common.css and not featured in the TPER that went along with the edit? :)
- Yes, I agree that this is something that could be done in core. I don't think I'd be a fan of it as it remains inconsistent with behavior elsewhere, but it also wouldn't particularly bother me if it could be done with a special-page specific style. I don't know if that's possible or not. Izno (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Izno. I don't know why you think you get to determine what level of usage determines what gets included in MediaWiki:Common.css. The feature existed for a decade and has plenty of usage, as you note. Was there discussion about its removal? Did you ask other editors or gain consensus for the removal of this longstanding feature? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Indic glyph/styles.css
Template:Indic glyph/styles.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar | |
For all the help you rendered to me. Celestina007 (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC) |
Lua
Are you versed in Lua? I'm having an issue with the carousel in the infobox at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs - it is not providing a caption. See Module:Carousel/WPDogs which includes a caption for each image - unless I've done it incorrectly in the Module and/or the infobox. I'm not even sure if it's changing the image. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. Atsme 💬 📧 20:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) I don't think that there's a problem with the module, I think that it's the way that Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs is using it. RexxS (talk · contribs) would be able to fix this in about ten seconds. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Atsme, yes, it is changing the image, and the image is getting in its alt the value of the text you've added as a "caption". What I think is the issue is that your use of string split isn't actually working. Firstly, I'd remove that use of string split from the
|image=
parameter - it's not necessary. Secondly, I'd adjust the now only use to target the|
separator. Per documentation, that looks like|sep={{!}}
. - Probably the module should be smarter and have people add some parameters with captions. Izno (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- RexxS is the one who helped me set it up. I'm not a programmer, and would appreciate it very much if either you or Redrose64 could fix the issue. I removed {{!}} thinking it was the problem. Atsme 💬 📧 21:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Atsme reverting your edit restores the caption for me without adversely affecting that the image will change. What may not be clear is how often the image changes, which for most Wikipedia pages is on page WP:PURGE. Either edit the page or add yourself a purge link somewhere to get the image to rotate. Izno (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- RexxS is the one who helped me set it up. I'm not a programmer, and would appreciate it very much if either you or Redrose64 could fix the issue. I removed {{!}} thinking it was the problem. Atsme 💬 📧 21:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
flatlist changes
Hi there, Izno! re: your changes to use the {{flatlist}} template in the DYK prep sets: I'd recommend modifying Template:Did you know/Clear with the same changes, so that it doesn't get swept away when preps are promoted and cleared. cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron Thank you. I was hoping I got everything. Izno (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Infobox
Hi @Izno:, Recently you had removed seasons handbox information of Pakistan Super League and Indian Premier League. If we keep that then it is easier to find or access. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Fade258: I don't think I mind them particularly, but they should not be in infoboxes. They should be separate Template:Sidebars in the template space and added to each of the tournament pages. The reason I removed them is because they have Template:Navboxes already that would duplicate the sidebars.
- No, it's not ok to use infobox for this. Izno (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- If I am correct then you are talking about this {{Indian Premier League}}. Fade258 (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Fade258: Yes, that's the one. Izno (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you but, mobile user won't get that template until they clicked on mobile desktop mode. Hope you understand. Fade258 (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Fade258 Yes, that's a consequence. We don't work around that problem by adding sidebars manually with the wrong kind of template, we do that by ensuring the sections in those articles that should hold those links do hold those links. There are multiple reasons why they do not show on mobile, and one of them is that they are bad for bandwidth, especially mobile devices. Izno (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Izno:, Ok then please tell me what is your final decision upon this information/handbox? Fade258 (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Fade258 I'm not sure what that question is asking. I have laid out why it should be one way, mostly knowing what your opposition was going to be. Either you or I can make the sidebar that would be the equivalent and add it to all the relevant pages, but I don't know if that's what you want. If you don't like those options, then we can consider discussing with more people at, say, WT:NAVBOX, but I don't think that will change the final result of removing the hand-done box in question.
- (You don't have to ping me on my talk page, I will be notified regardless.) Izno (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Izno:, Ok then please tell me what is your final decision upon this information/handbox? Fade258 (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Fade258 Yes, that's a consequence. We don't work around that problem by adding sidebars manually with the wrong kind of template, we do that by ensuring the sections in those articles that should hold those links do hold those links. There are multiple reasons why they do not show on mobile, and one of them is that they are bad for bandwidth, especially mobile devices. Izno (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you but, mobile user won't get that template until they clicked on mobile desktop mode. Hope you understand. Fade258 (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Fade258: Yes, that's the one. Izno (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- If I am correct then you are talking about this {{Indian Premier League}}. Fade258 (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
"Genio" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Genio and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 6#Genio until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Muhandes (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
hlist?
Genuinely out of curiosity, but Special:Diff/1076081289 seems like an edit that doesn't actually do anything. Why make it? Primefac (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Primefac, it doesn't do anything indeed, except clear out a false positive for finding uses of the class (see MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do#Hlist). While I can trivially filter it out, use of the 'hlist' name is also a bit implementation-specific. Izno (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Help for Turkmen Wikipedia
Hello, can you please help me... We have in Turkmen Wikipedia a page for Crimea Autonomous Republic (turkmen: Krym Awtonom Respublikasy) but in the collection of Crimea Autonomous Republic, is in turkmen the page about Crimea (turkmen: Krym), can you change the page with "Krym Awtonom Respublikasy"? TayfunEt. (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- @TayfunEt.: You will need to ask an editor on Turkmen Wikipedia it sounds like. Izno (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Template:USAF attack aircraft
I noticed that you removed links to other templates from Template:USAF attack aircraft. I've reverted your edit because I believe WP:IAR applies here. The reason is that the attack, aerial target, and amphibian sequences of the 1924 United States Army Air Service aircraft designation system all carried the "A" mission letter, which can cause some confusion among readers who are not aware of the separate sequences. - ZLEA T\C 03:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- ZLEA Then these should be links to the relevant articles, not links to the templates. Izno (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- There are no separate articles on the different sequences (most are not notable enough for their own articles anyway), hence why I believe this falls under IAR. Also, maybe I missed it, but I could not find anywhere in WP:NAV or WP:NAVBOX that states that links to other templates are not allowed in navboxes. I also don't see any technical limitations to including links to other templates, since such links are treated as regular links anyway. Is there a specific reason that you believe IAR shouldn't apply here? - ZLEA T\C 04:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- ZLEA, the point of WP:NAV is that we add links to articles on English Wikipedia to navboxes, with some exception for a handful of other user-facing links (portals and the occasional category). Other navbox templates are not user-facing links. (I can probably dig up the conversation that I am pretty sure happened on one of those talk pages about linking to other templates.)
- People who may confuse two separate sequences X both named Y should be pointed to a mainspace page that clarifies the topic (I guess the one for the designation system), not be provided that clarification (obscurely so) on the navbox that purports to cover only one meaning of the term needing disambiguation ("A"). Separately, not only are these other templates not user-facing links of course, but they fundamentally only cause the confusion you're trying to prevent, IMO. "Why are these linked here? They all have "A" in their designation.... oh, that's confusing." That's not the point of this navbox. If the clarification must be made anywhere, it should be in the template documentation, but even then I don't think it's needed because the name of the navbox clearly lays the scope out. Izno (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Furthermore, WikiProject Aviation has been linking templates in navboxes for a long time, just look at the yearly accident and incident templates. I don't know if we have an established consensus to ignore any guidelines against it, but feel free to voice any concerns about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. - ZLEA T\C 04:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- ZLEA I'm going to take WP Aviation doing things with a grain of salt on the point of navboxes given how much effort it took to delete the "lists of" series of navboxes that did not have the actual pages included in a WP:BIDIRECTIONAL fashion....
- The yearly ones have a somewhat different pattern that extends outside this area that I think should be corrected also, but that's a lot of effort to work on that problem. These ones were the small pile of navboxes that I felt comfortable working on and which showed up separately in queue of other work (i.e. I was changing them anyway and the better of the two changes was to eliminate the problem I identified rather than adjust the templates of interest to use WP:HLIST). Izno (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- There are no separate articles on the different sequences (most are not notable enough for their own articles anyway), hence why I believe this falls under IAR. Also, maybe I missed it, but I could not find anywhere in WP:NAV or WP:NAVBOX that states that links to other templates are not allowed in navboxes. I also don't see any technical limitations to including links to other templates, since such links are treated as regular links anyway. Is there a specific reason that you believe IAR shouldn't apply here? - ZLEA T\C 04:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Are you planning to continue working on {{Navbox/div}}? A group of us is working on tidying unused template pages, and this is one of them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Jonesey95, it's a long-term project. Does adding a /sandbox somewhere in the name clear it from the report? Izno (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Why was Template:National Rail colour/doc deleted?
I don't have admin access, so it is unclear to me why {{National Rail colour/doc}} was deleted when {{National Rail colour}} exists and wants to use it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Must have misunderstood that to be a different doc page. Restored. Izno (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you for keeping Wikipedia running! 3kh0 | 3kh0.github.io (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
Unsubsting with parameter issues
Hi, I'm not terribly familiar with AWB, but I wanted to point out a few diffs that I have already repaired, and see if you had a fix for that. Again, I haven't ever messed with that kind of stuff, so I'm not too sure. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4
Main page portal removal
Thanks for making the change. You’re pulling in Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox/styles.css, is the sandbox intentional? Stephen 23:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sigh. Do everything right except the important part. Izno (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just checking that you see a consensus in the RfC to unlink portals completely rather than moving them to another part of the main page. Certes (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Certes I believe I've implemented both items 1 and 2 from the close correctly. Do you think I missed something? Izno (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose the new link at the bottom of the Other areas of Wikipedia section satisfies their definition of "moving" whilst getting rid of all links to actual portals. The change has been successful. Certes (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I do not know who 'their' is in that sentence, but the RFC laid out fairly-specific questions on where content would end up, which do appear to have been answered in the discussion. I would suggest that further questions on your part be sent over to the closer of the discussion, Barkeep49. :) Izno (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. I agree that you have implemented the close as written and apologise for questioning your edits. As you imply, I have strong feelings which it might be unwise for me to express in writing, but they are certainly not directed against your perfectly reasonable actions. Certes (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I do not know who 'their' is in that sentence, but the RFC laid out fairly-specific questions on where content would end up, which do appear to have been answered in the discussion. I would suggest that further questions on your part be sent over to the closer of the discussion, Barkeep49. :) Izno (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose the new link at the bottom of the Other areas of Wikipedia section satisfies their definition of "moving" whilst getting rid of all links to actual portals. The change has been successful. Certes (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Certes I believe I've implemented both items 1 and 2 from the close correctly. Do you think I missed something? Izno (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
New administrator activity requirement
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
- Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
- Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
joining
how to join the department of fun Quident (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)