Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tucoxn (talk | contribs) at 02:02, 14 March 2014 (→CSD for Files and the CSD Log: any update?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WT:TW

This page is for general discussion and questions related to Twinkle. It is also one possible venue for reporting bugs and requesting new features; although see Bugs and feature requests below.

Consider also checking Twinkle's documentation, which may answer your question.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

Other archives Friendly talk archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Old Bugs page; archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Old RFA page; archive 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2020-04-26

Bugs and feature requests

Bugs and feature requests can be reported at https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle (you will need to have a github account). This will probably result in the issue being noticed sooner, as an e-mail is sent to all Twinkle developers. Alternatively, start a new discussion on this page. Possibly slower service, but you will be able to gain consensus, etc., if you need to.

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)

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) 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.  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.  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.  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 Misplaced Pages for advertising or promotion on 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 Misplaced Pages 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  00:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

CSD for Files and the CSD Log

Hi. I would like to know if it's possible to change the link for files that were proposed and logged in the CSD log. Currently, after locally (en.wp) saved versions of a file are deleted, the CSD log entry wikilinks to the en.wp pointer page for the file held on Commons -- this makes examining a CSD log harder since those files do not have red links. If it's not possible to change the wikilink, it should be possible to add a link to the file's deletion log using Special:log. (This is probably easier.) Thanks! - tucoxn\ 22:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Where would you like the link to point? There isn't a whole lot of choice. (I actually wish image redlinks went to the File: namespace page instead of the Upload Wizard, as that is a pretty useless destination.)

I agree a link to the deletion log could be a useful addition to the CSD log in the case of files. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How about pointing to the deleted page history. For the example of File:HOT ROD!.jpg, which was deleted on en.wp but justifiably remains on Commons, a link to the file's history could be added; the history also shows that the file has been deleted. I think this might turn out red if a wikilink is used. In any case, adding the deletion log to all CSD entries would be useful. - tucoxn\ 20:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This, that and the other: do you think there is interest and/or use for having this change implemented? - tucoxn\ 02:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're interested and I guess I am too :) It's an idea that makes sense, I'm just a bit snowed under right now to do anything substantial to Twinkle. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:This, that and the other: Any update on this. Is there anything I can do to help get it implemented? - tucoxn\ 02:02, 14 March 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)

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.

Misplaced Pages: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)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists