# Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab Miscellaneous
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. Questions about MediaWiki in general should be posted at the MediaWiki support desk.

« Older discussions, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

## Special:Nearby

What is Special:Nearby and why might it have problems with coordinates in infoboxes? Background information at Template talk:Coord#decimal degrees to degrees, minutes, and seconds of arc, but we should probably discuss it here since it's a technical matter, not related to the original problem in that thread. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain it's used directly in the mobile frontend, where it has a more obvious use ("take a picture of this thing which has an article! and then add the image!"). --Izno (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
You are mainly talking about the magic word #coordinates, which is specifies coordinates for a lot of things, among those is Special:Nearby. Special:Nearby is an nice example of that and I will oversimplify what #coordinates really is in the following description. Special:Nearby obviously shows users which subjects are near to them. In order to give you this information Special:Nearby needs information on where the subject of the article is situated, e.g. the GPS of the subject, and the location (GPS) of you, which it gets from your browser. The GPS data of your browser is then compared to the GPS of the article and converted from an coordinate over to an distance like kilometres from said subject. Special:Nearby knows where the subject is due to the #coordinates magic word, which was implemented into Template:Coord shortly after that feature was added. Of course there are more coordinates on some articles than just the location of the subject the article is about, but that does not cause major issues as the #coordinates magic word has an marker called "primary" which marks which coordinate represents the location of the subject the article is about. Hopefully this was simple enough for you.--Snaevar (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Snaevar: OK, so given that {{Infobox UK school}} calls {{coord}} with |display=title, and therefore uses {{#coordinates:}}, why should it make a difference for Back ache (talk · contribs) to move the coordinates out of the infobox, as here? In fact, why should changing the position within the page source of a {{coord}}, with no other change, as here, make any difference at all? This is what we are trying to get the bottom of at Template talk:Coord#decimal degrees to degrees, minutes, and seconds of arc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
It's probably because calling {{Coord}} from the infobox template rather than the article causes problems with the parser function. Since infoboxes are being converted so that {{Coord}} is inserted in |coordinates=, replacing separate lat/long parameters, it shouldn't be a problem after they're all converted. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
10:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
This simply doesn't stand up. Writing
{{Infobox UK school
...
| latitude     = 51.3742
| longitude    = 0.0186
| dms          = yes
...
}}

will plug the appropriate values into {{coord}} exactly as if we had used
{{Coord|51.3742|0.0186|region:GB_type:edu_dim:100|display=title|format=dms}}

directly. Why should it behave any differently? What is there to say "this is inside an infobox and so must be disregarded"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Snaevar: Other than Special:Nearby and our old OSM service, what is the #coordinates API actually used for? How much does Wikidata duplicate its function? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
10:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

## Reference bundling

Is it possible, at all, to use a ref name tag inside a reference bundle? When I preview the reference bundle with a ref name tag inside it does not appear to work, so I was wondering if there was a way, at all, to work around the issue? ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean that you want to place a ref inside another ref? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
yes, that is what I mean. Is it possible do you know? ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes it is, you have to use the magic word #ref. Have a look at user:Nthep/sandbox2 for an example. Nthep (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I would like to see an example of where this is to be done - if a ref itself needs to be referenced, there's probably something wrong. Refs should be able to stand up for themselves without justification. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Before I swapped to using {{efn}} I used #ref in an explanatory note that needed sourcing. But that's about all I can envisage. Nthep (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I've tried to explain this very well. If I use an example from an article I am currently working on to try and promote its status to Good Article (Casualty (series 30)), a suggestion was made that the article uses reference bundling. This was an example of a paragraph using a reference bundle:

Henry previously appeared in several episodes in 2011. Tom Chambers made two guest appearances as his Holby City character Sam Strachan in episodes twenty-three and twenty-four, whilst Emily Carey returned in the role of Grace Beauchamp in a storyline which reunited Sam with Connie, his former partner and Grace's mother. Rosie Marcel made a guest appearance as her Holby City character Jac Naylor in episode twenty-three.[1]

As you can see in this reference bundle all the references use a cite web tag. However, later on in the Series 30 article, two of the references which have been used in the reference bundle (the references about S30–E23 and S30–E24), appear again, used to reference a different part of the article. So, what I'm wondering is, can you put the ref name tag inside a bundle and the reference bundle still work? Because what is happening at the moment, is this:

[Random use of ref:] "Hearts and Flowers", written by: Dominique Moloney, directed by: David Innes Edwards.[2]

Henry previously appeared in several episodes in 2011. Tom Chambers made two guest appearances as his Holby City character Sam Strachan in episodes twenty-three and twenty-four, whilst Emily Carey returned in the role of Grace Beauchamp in a storyline which reunited Sam with Connie, his former partner and Grace's mother. Rosie Marcel made a guest appearance as her Holby City character Jac Naylor in episode twenty-three.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

So is there a way to use a ref name inside a reference bundle and not have the message pop-up about a Cite Error. Have I made myself a little clearer now? Sorry about the confusion. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
#ref would probably work but I'd ask the more basic question, why bundle the refs? If they are all saying the same thing then that is WP:OVERCITE. There's also a question of style, the rest of the article doesn't use bundled refs and if you want a GA there should, IMO, be consistency of appearance. Nthep (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it will work. You could compromise by bundling the ones that aren't re-used, but I think it's important to remember the WP:GACR do not include a criterion of "use the exact WP:CITEVAR that the reviewer likes best", so the article can't legitimately be failed over that anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

#### References

1. ^ Sources:
• "S30–E23 Hearts and Flowers". Radio Times. Retrieved 13 February 2016.
• "S30–E24 Just Do It". Radio Times. Retrieved 13 February 2016.
• Dainty, Sophie (17 December 2015). "Casualty's exciting new trailer shows Holby City's Sam Strachan returning and MUCH more". Digital Spy. Retrieved 3 January 2016.
• Brown, David (9 February 2016). "Casualty spoilers: Tom Chambers returns to Holby as Sam Strachan". Radio Times. Retrieved 13 February 2016.
2. ^ "S30–E23 Hearts and Flowers". Radio Times. Retrieved 13 February 2016.

## Mobile browser fonts

Is there a way to customize the display fonts on mobile phone browsers, the same way I can, using the custom CSS? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Mahmudmasri: Special:MyPage/minerva.css. Nirmos (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! It works! Is there a way to make all other wikis use it, similarly as the global CSS works? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Any idea, Nirmos? Anyone? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, MediaWiki does not support global mobile css to my knowledge. Nirmos (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Do we have any tool/script/gadget/whatever to deal with over-linking? Manual removal of repeated links from an article such as this is seriously time-consuming. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, User:Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms. Graham87 12:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
That's certainly useful, thank you Graham87! But what I meant was a tool that would go through a page and remove all but the first occurrence of each wikilink (if it was smart it could have options to ignore the infobox and/or the lead). Does anyone know of anything that does this? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
AWB will make it easier for you, doesn't do the work for you but at least it will identify the terms multi-linked. Nthep (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

## pending protection not shown in page's log

Hi there. I noticed this protection does not appear in the logs for this article. Is there a known bug that old pending changes protections are not in the logs or am I missing something else? Regards SoWhy 11:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The page was moved from the title you can see in the edit summary. Logs are not moved - the log's here. Someone might chip in to say how old this issue is and whether it will be fixed.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
phab:T10731 and phab:T40123 are the only tasks I can find. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
So basically it's a known problem for at least five years now and no one worked on it? Okay, thanks. You learn something new each day. Regards SoWhy 13:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Logs have pretty much always been left behind when pages are moved - ever since the page-move feature was first added, waaaaay back in 2003. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Yes, but the bug has been fixed (not retrospectively) since the time of that protection; the report can be found at T59912. (It took me a ridiculous amount of time to find that bug report, even though I'd submitted it). And , just a pedantic correction to your reply: the page move feature was made accessible to all users in 2002, but even existed in UseModWiki in 2001. Graham87 09:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. Weird that the other bugs mentioned by Jo-Jo Eumerus have not been closed then. Or does this refer to other problems? Regards SoWhy 09:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Those bugs refer to other problems; they're about logs moving with pages more generally. Graham87 10:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, any chance you could just add an easy cross-reference to logs under previous names in the output, rather than move the log? I can see why people would get antsy about moving log files, since the whole idea of logs is not to mess with them. Wnt (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

## Module:Redirect

I am confident in Lua, but I thought I would ask for help instead, so I do not break anything. Concerning Module:Redirect, which retrieves the target of a redirect page, the module uses .prefixedText to return the target of the page. However, I am looking to add (not necessarily replace) the option to use .fullText, and return the contents from that call.

For example, calling {{#invoke:redirect|main|List of Daredevil episodes|fulltext=y}} would return "Daredevil (TV series)#Episodes", where {{#invoke:redirect|main|List of Daredevil episodes}} would still return "Daredevil (TV series)".

This is so that I can check if a redirecting page links to a particular section on a the target article (e.g. the example already given), or if it does not. (For example, Vikings (season 5) redirects to "List of Vikings episodes", no section.) Cheers. -- AlexTW 09:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius and Wnt: Pinging some major contributors to the module. -- AlexTW 15:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The .prefixedText was added subsequent to my editing, and I don't think I ever thought about this issue. The edit summary for Stradivarius' addition here credits for the request, so I'll ping him. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
While I imagine this change would not affect most modules using the getTarget function, some of them may be relying on the fact that the returned title string doesn't include a fragment, so adding one may break them. To avoid breaking them, there are basically two choices: a) go through all the modules using getTarget and alter them to work with fragments if that is necessary (that search gets 103 hits, so it's doable); or b) edit the getTarget function in such a way that it doesn't break existing uses. For b) you could add a flag to either return a fragment or not, or my preferred solution would be to write another function like getTarget that returns a mw.title object instead of a string, and then use that function from the main function instead. If I were to write getTarget again, I'd make it return a title object, as that is more flexible than just a string. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. So, there wouldn't be a way to do it just for this module? -- AlexTW 01:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I wasn't thinking about fullText when I wrote that originally. My preference now is actually to switch to that altogether, assuming that it wouldn't break anything. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

## Popcat template

The "related topics" internal link in Template:Underpopulated category doesn't look helpful. It leads to something like this, requiring an Einstein to figure out what to search. Maybe remove this from the template? Brandmeistertalk 15:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed a '&' which broke the search url.[1] I guess it worked in the past. Now your example from Category:1926 archaeological discoveries produces [2]. Other uses will be fixed when the job queue gets to them. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Brandmeistertalk 16:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

## Minor edits can be very difficult to find

Minor edits can be significant but very difficult to track down. It took me several minutes to find the edit made by an IP at [3]. It was a correct edit, inserting italics around Equus mosbachensis, but it could easily have been disruptive. It would be very helpful if edits could be made easier to find, for example by putting + and - sign next to each line which has been changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried the option at Wikipedia:Tip of the day/January 30? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I see a light blue background for the added apostrophes. It's easy to see for me. If your browser or eye sight makes it hard then it has class="diffchange diffchange-inline". The styling can be changed in your CSS. Or you can try "Display diffs with the old yellow-and-green colors and design" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. The code is in MediaWiki:Gadget-OldDiff.css. You can also try wikEdDiff for an alternative way to display diffs. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I will try these options. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
You suggest "by putting + and - sign next to each line which has been changed" - it already does this, and IIRC has done for as long as I've been around (almost 8 yrs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I suspect that Dudley is asking for the diff page to mark the relevant line-on-his-screen (70 characters on mine) rather than the line-in-the-wikitext-database (1,575 characters). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Can't be done. We have no way of knowing how wide a user's screen is, so what with word wrapping, no way of knowing how many "lines" down the change is. For the edit in question, I see sixteen "lines", with the actual change being on "lines" 4-5: that's if we assume that line 4 begins "from the northwest" and line 5 begins "mosbachensis'' and are". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

## Special:AllPages disabled

Special:AllPages has been disabled due to some performance issues. Just incase various reports end up here Reedy (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Special:Allpages still displays MediaWiki:Allpages-summary at the top so I have created the message with this: "Special:Allpages was temporarily disabled 20 March 2017 due to performance issues. This is reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Special:AllPages disabled and phab:T160916." PrimeHunter (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I am the one who was fetching those pages because i need to discover all content pages. I have successfully harvested all pages in Turkish and Arabic Wikipedia. But i have been having problems in English wikipedia. Any estimated time you can fix the issue and return that feature back? Or any chance you can dump somewhere all content pages links?BurstPower (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Why weren't you using the API? Have you seen the database dumps at [4] which have things like page links? Reedy (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, we provide database replicas on tool labs wikitech:Help:Tool_Labs/Database Reedy (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Reedy where is this API that can let me fetch content pages' URLs? I am checking dumps but there are so many stuff and i don't know which one of them i can obtain URLs of the content pages. Any help is appreciate. Thank you. BurstPower (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
mw:API. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Ty for the answer. However i do not see anywhere in the api Special:AllPages feature. If you could provide me all pages links' dump i would appreciate a lot. I mean all links of "5,363,329 articles in English" which is written in top left main page. Any ETA when will Special:AllPages return? I would expect WikiPedia to have pagination but i think it doesn't have right? BurstPower (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The API has an "all pages" module that is detailed at [5]. Yes the Special Page does have pagination. That's how you're making continuation queries. But that doesn't help when many requests are made simultaneously. Of course, AllPages doesn't tell you which are actually content pages, just which are in the right NS. Some wikis have content pages in other namespaces. For the dumps, see [6], you want "Wiki page-to-page link records." ala enwiki-20170301-pagelinks.sql.gz and possibly "List of page titles in main namespace" which is enwiki-20170301-all-titles-in-ns0.gz. Technically, also, you don't need the URLs, you just need the page names. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ + pagename would give you the URL Reedy (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── BurstPower, you said that you "need to discover all content pages". Why do you need to do this? What's your end goal? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is the real question. The best way to get those URLs is going to depend on what you want to use them for. The different ways of accessing the data (data dumps, the API, and the Tool Labs database replicas via e.g. quarry) all have their strengths and weaknesses. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

### Special:AllPages re-enabled

Special:AllPages is back again. But the filter for redirects is gone as the cause of the performance problem. It might come back again in the near future, but is likely to take a while, as it could require a new DB index. Reedy (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Reedy redirect pages are parsed as italic am i right? BurstPower (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
If that's how you're doing it, you're doing it VERY wrong. Reedy (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
BurstPower, please tell us what you're trying to accomplish. There may already be a tool for it. Someone here may be able to save you a lot amount of time and energy (or the servers). The regulars on this page are often incredibly helpful. Even if your project is "just" for fun, please tell us about it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

## DYK user topicon

{{DYK user topicon}} seems to be malfunctioning as of today. No icons are showing, just the alt-text and link. There's no edits on the template page. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

When I purged your user page the icons came back. --NeilN talk to me 16:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe yesterday's icon deletion. [7] --NeilN talk to me 16:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: Ah, okay! Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

## Pending changes is restraining the wrong edits

This is one example but I've seen this a bunch of times. When I went to the edit history at Cameron Diaz, I noticed that all four edits before this one were waiting for a response from a pending changes reviewer. User:XboxGamer22408 has been here almost four years, User:Red Jay has been here over eleven years, neither has ever been blocked, and both are pending changes reviewers. Why didn't their edits get automatically accepted? CityOfSilver 18:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Both editors were reverting back to an unaccepted revision containing vandalism from an unregistered user. That's how it's supposed to work. If they'd reverted manually then they would have had an option to accept the edit(s), but they were both using rollback so wouldn't have had the option. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: Got it, thank you. I know this is contrarian (and given how powerful rollback is, probably impossible) but it seems like if someone can be trusted to review pending changes, they should be allowed to undo good work and restore vandalism since the presumption is that they're going to keep working from there. That yellow background on good editors' contributions is confusing and played hell with my ability to assess the damage at Diaz's article. CityOfSilver 19:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
If done automatically that would only cause a lot more vandalism to remain. PC reviewers can actually do what you suggest, but it needs to be a conscious decision to tick a box. "That yellow background" is a useful sign that something has probably slipped through the net. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: I mean, I know. I just applied to become a reviewer because I can see how I'd need it to react to situations like these in the future. CityOfSilver 19:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2017-12

22:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

## Are you using the (really) old wikitext editor?

Is anyone here using a wikitext editor that gives you a toolbar that looks like this (possibly with a few more buttons):

If you're using this, can you tell me why (e.g., personal preference, a tool that hasn't been ported to the 2010 wikitext editor, just never bothered to switch, anything)? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like I am, did not know there was a later version of the editor, just the one you get by default. Keith D (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
They most don't change your preferences when potentially disruptive new options are introduced. If you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box for "Enable enhanced editing toolbar", then you'll see the 2010 wikitext editor. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I use the old wikitext editor but have disabled the toolbars. Except for trivia, my editing is done in a text editor and the clean and simple old wikitext editor allows quick previews. Particularly when working with a module, I might preview stuff in a sandbox twenty of more times to try different things. This comment was written in a text editor. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I dislike screen clutter and have disabled the upper toolbar. There's another toolbar underneath the edit window which I haven't disabled but hardly use; the option there that I use most often is the one added by User:Anomie/unsignedhelper.js. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I use the old one - the JavaScript payload is a lot smaller, and so page loads are noticeably quicker. It also takes up less vertical height, leaving more room for the real purpose of the page - the edit box - to fit into the viewport without scrolling down. I also don't need any of the buttons that it provides. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
"I also don't need any of the buttons that it provides." can you clarify to which toolbar 'it' refers here ? It's ambiguous. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I already stated "I use the old one" - see Wikipedia:RefToolbar, we have three available, and for me the old one is the only one that we had when I started, i.e. Wikipedia:RefToolbar/1.0; but I also don't need any of the buttons that either of the forms of Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0 provide.
I used the term "old" here because Whatamidoing started off by using the phrase "old wikitext editor" in conjunction with an image that shows something very similar to the Wikipedia:RefToolbar/1.0 toolbar as opposed to the 2.0 ones (although mine has several extra buttons, and some differ, so it looks much more like this except that mine doesn't have the ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {n}}}$ button that appears eighth from left in both that image and Whatamidoing's image). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
, seems like something that we could also easily measure with event logging is it not ? Or are the usage numbers too low for that ? —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Event logging would count how many, but wouldn't give the "why". I'm guessing that this is an attempt to understand the usage rather than just measure it. Anomie 12:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Anomie is correct: I'm trying to figure out why. The toolbar is under-maintained, rarely used (about 1 in 3,000 of the active editors), and it's not clear whether it's worth the resources to prevent death from bitrot. I was assuming that some of those ~50 editors were using it because it was the shiny new thing when they started editing in 2006, and that therefore I had a chance of finding smoe of them here. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I normally keep Javascript off - everything works way faster, with less worry about what hacks might be introduced into the site javascript, and also to marginally (because alas occasionally I do allow the script, like this time) reduce concern about what panopticlick techniques (cf. EFF) might be introduced, allegedly to further the endless hopeless war on sock puppets - so I don't see any of that. But when I enable it I see a different but similar bar with extra items for "special characters" and such; I'm not sure which version it is. Wnt (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I probably would still be have the toolbar entirely disabled if it weren't for needing it to toggle CodeEditor between code and plaintext when editing things like Module and JavaScript pages. I never use it except for that. Anomie 12:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, BTW, I note that we seem to have bug where, if you've disabled the "enhanced" WikiEditor toolbar in preferences since (probably) September 2016, the default-enabled refToolbar gadget will load it anyway due to JavaScript interpreting "0" as true rather than false like PHP does. I should fix that in MediaWiki, because it's probably affecting more than just refToolbar. Anomie 12:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Anomie: See also phab:T54542, I don't think that commit was a particular problem, it's always been a bit of a mess on that front. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Yuck, no you are right, this is significantly worse now. :( —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
local fix deployed. But this definitely is not nice. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I turned off the toolbar years ago (as all it does for me is allow me to accidentally click on it and reduce the amount of space available for the edit box). So lacking any toolbars, I don't know which editor I am using (other than not VisualEditor). —Kusma (t·c) 12:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Um, how do I get my old toolbar back, please? I turned on "Enable enhanced editing toolbar", noted that it now took two rows to display buttons and didn't have my Cite button, and turned it back off. The new toolbar still loads despite a logout, browser restart, etc. Anomie, is this the bug you mentioned? --NeilN talk to me 13:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: should be better now, can you confirm ? —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@TheDJ: Nope. I even turned "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" back on, saved, turned it back off, and saved. The "classic" toolbar appears briefly and then the new toolbar replaces it. --NeilN talk to me 14:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
You might have to bypass your browser cache. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Did that. Issue remains. --NeilN talk to me 15:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Try going to this ApiSandbox link, verify that it looks sensible to you, and click "Make request". That should reset the preference to a better value. Anomie 16:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Anomie: That worked. Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 17:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm still using this editor. I did try the new editor when it came out and had some problems with it. It's so long ago, I can't clearly remember what the difficulties were, but some tools/functions were either not available, or took extra clicks or typing to execute. Subsript and superscript might have been in that category, but as I say, I can't fully remember. SpinningSpark 16:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I still technically use this editor, but like others have the toolbar disabled because I don't click any of the buttons (my meta CSS page shows the various clutter I hide). Long as I can continue to disable them with the 2010 editor, it wouldn't bother me to swap over. ^demon[omg plz] 16:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
2003 wikitext editor
It sounds like most of you (including Johnuniq, John of Reading, Kusma, Wnt, and ^demon) are using the 2003-era wikitext editor.
This is what you get with no Javascript and/or if you disable the toolbars via Special:Preferences. RedRose, have you considered switching to this one, since you don't need any of the buttons? It'd be very slightly faster for you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I still use this, as it's considerably less cluttered than the "official" toolbar so isn't wasting valuable screen space with buttons I'll rarely if ever use, and the few buttons I actually use (super/subscript, hidden text, the RefTools cite button) are right there rather than buried in slow and cumbersome pop-up menus. ‑ Iridescent 17:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
+1 --NeilN talk to me 17:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I use similarly the editor without toolbar as I never use the buttons. In case of non-trivial edits I load the contents of the edit window (via Firefox/It's all text!) into vim, edit it within vim with nice syntax highlighting for MediaWiki markup, and save it back to the edit window. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
My editor looks very much like the original image; i used to have one with all manner of buttons, bells and, possibly, a whistle, but i went back to this as all the other did was take space for stuff i didn't need. TBH, if i knew a way to get rid of the buttons at the top of this editor i might, as they are almost never of use to me. Happy days, LindsayHello 09:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
mw:Editor has the instructions you want (notes on the first item in the table). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

## Documenting for Template:!

It seems the bang template "{{!}}" (magic word) has fallen through the documentation cracks, and needs more explanation somewhere(s). It was even TfD'ed again in December 2016 to merge with {{pipe}}, as if parser function "{{#if:}}" should be merged with "{if}" to avoid so many #/colon characters! There are templates designed to allow wp:subst which avoid simple "{{!}}" and use "{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude/>!}}" instead, which further shows the need to explain how using "{{!}}" is not a template call any longer. I will put an {ombox} at top of Template_talk:! to clarify usage. I plan to reset Template:! back as "&124;" to generate bar pipe "|" if the template is force called as "{{! |}}", but I will discuss that at Template_talk:!. When did "{{!}}" become a magic word to bypass the template? -Wikid77 (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

mw:MediaWiki 1.24/wmf12#Core changes says "git #c313a75c - Support {{!}} as a magic word". mw:MediaWiki 1.24/Roadmap says 1.24wmf12 was installed here 10 July 2014. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Good. I also noticed "July 2014" mentioned in the Template_talk:! page. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 127#Tech News: 2014-27 which links to gerrit:136234. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I see "{{!}}" operates the same, while double "{{!!}}" is only a template, which lists below during edit-preview. But I need to note the subst'ing for "{{!}}" still requires "{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude/>!}}" or similar to avoid literal "{{!}}" being stored inside the page. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

## Page size tool

I just tried running the page size script at User:Dr pda/prosesize.js (which usually works perfectly) on the article Standing wave ratio. The script got a certain way through the article (as shown by the yellow highlighting) and then stopped. It seems it stops on every inline instance of $\Gamma$ in the article. There are a couple of other math expressions that stop it as well, but it does not stop on every inline math expression. By inline, I mean inline with the article prose as opposed to an expression on its own line. This is quite strange, I have not come across it before, despite using this script for many years. Does anyone have any ideas how to fix this? SpinningSpark 15:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you report what you see in the browser console? Ruslik_Zero 20:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
01:01:04.982 TypeError: id.childNodes[i].className is undefined 1 index.php:90:1
There is a lot of other stuff from when the page loads, but this seems to be the only line generated by running the page size script. SpinningSpark 01:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Bit of a wonder that it worked at all, any nested comment would make it fail and those aren't exactly rare... —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
All looks good now, thanks. SpinningSpark 11:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

If so, where?

I'd like to (AWB) database scan them for WikiProject tags.

I look forward to your replies. The Transhumanist 21:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Start at https://dumps.wikimedia.org/backup-index.html and look for "enwiki". The current dump is incomplete so jump back to the 20170301 dump. Then look down for the link whose name ends "-pages-meta-current.xml.bz2". A mere 25 Gigabyte download... -- John of Reading (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. By the way, what other kinds of pages are included in the definition of "meta"? The Transhumanist 09:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not clear, is it? The "pages-meta" dumps include everything; the "pages-articles" dumps exclude all the talk namespaces and all user pages. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Download failed twice. Switched to bittorrent. Will let you know how the database scan goes. Thanks for the info! The Transhumanist 21:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

## Editnotices for (new?) users creating new articles poorly formatted in VE

See:

Editnotice that normally appears above article appears in side thing. Is very squished. 50.205.115.50 (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't really use VE - so fired it up to what the EN's look like - and was somewhat shocked to not even get one AT ALL (see screenshot)

Has this always been broken, or is this something new? — xaosflux Talk 02:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux:, did you switch from source editor to VE in one session by chance? Starting with Visual Editor (i.e. for Abortion) shows the edit notices for me (albeit in a squished display as mentioned). Starting with source editor and then switching to VE looses the edit notices (they should still be available clicking on the exclamation mark in the menu) --> this seems to be a bug (Windows XP, Vector, Firefox). GermanJoe (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
After switching they are just gone all together - I'm guessing a problem like in phab:T153118. — xaosflux Talk 03:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I have no such problem. Maybe it's a gadget/userscript/adblocker interfering ? —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 22:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@TheDJ: Just reproduced on another computer, with a vanilla Chrome install - generic wiki account using Vector but with text editor default. Open the page, got the edit notice, switched the VE - no more edit notice. — xaosflux Talk 23:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, {{newarticletext-unconfirmed}} will have to get some responsive design treatment... Maybe i can take a shot at it later today. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 07:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This should be a bit better now aka. readable. We can revisit as needed. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

## Showing template nav in mobile view

Nav is an important part of a page. Can we add it to the mobile view? Golopotw (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)