Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  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, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Search results from sister projects...

Is there any way to disable or opt-out of the sister project search results? For instance, I put in "Talk:Orlando shooting" wanting to see how something was technically set-up on that page and found what I needed "Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" along with other Wikipedia articles listed on the left. I also got results from sister projects over on the right side which consisted of:
Talk:Keira Knightley
girls off-cam, and they were ready to kill me because I kissed Orlando Bloom! On shooting a scene in Pirates of the Caribbean. The fact that we haven't
Quotes from Wikiquote
Talk:As You Like It
As you Like it. Actus primus, Scæna prima. Enter Orlando and Adam. Orlando. As I remember Adam, it was vpon this fashion bequeathed me
From Wikisource

I'd really like to be able to opt-out if possible. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to opt out, too, and not via custom css, but a simple checkbox on the prefs page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Yep, I'd like to opt out as well. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

For those curious, see how search results from sister projects were discussed at WP:VPP. Such results went live as seen via mailing list. This isn't a technical problem but more of a complaint. BTW, I started a thread seen at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Search results from selected sister projects now active. You can propose enabling/disabling search results from those projects at WP:village pump (proposal) if you can. George Ho (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 154#Sister projects search results. --George Ho (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Not sure what your point is with the "...if you can" above there but ok. I went ahead and posted at proposal, probably worded it incorrectly or something but it would be nice to have an opt-out for this feature. That's all. Shearonink (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Just write a gadget —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 08:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, here's the code for disabling the 'sister-site-search':

#mw-interwiki-results { display: none !important } or div#mw-interwiki-results { display: none !important }<-Post on your common.css page. This fix was kindly posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) by Nemo. (I still wish that this had been an opt-in checkmark-feature.) Shearonink (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's a quick snippet you can add to your common.js to make it collapsible and collapsed by default:
    	if ( mw.config.get( 'wgCanonicalSpecialPageName' ) === 'Search' ) {
    			mw.loader.using( 'jquery.makeCollapsible' ),
    		).done( function () {
    			var $mwInterwikiResults = $( '#mw-interwiki-results' );
    			$mwInterwikiResults.addClass( 'mw-collapsible mw-collapsed' )
    				.find( '.iw-results' ).addClass( 'mw-collapsible-content' );
    		} );
    Murph9000 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: Per discussion, the gadget option is now available "Do not show search results for sister projects on the search results page" via user preferences. Clicking that option and saving the changes will disable the results via user account. --George Ho (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Requesting suppression on search result from Wikibooks

Wikibooks was included, yet I slowly realized that there was no consensus per RfC discussion to include search results from Wikibooks in English Wikipedia. The developers included it without double-checking it. Therefore, I filed a task at Phabricator. --George Ho (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging TheDJ and Murph9000 about this. --George Ho (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I support user choice in terms of being able to configure what is shown. There probably should be options added to preferences to control it. As long as there isn't a serious negative from it (I don't see one), and the presentation does not risk confusion about what is a local result vs. extended result (seems clear enough to me), I'm not significantly concerned about WMF using it to promote all projects (even when that does not align with the RfC closure). Murph9000 (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, when I wrote the follow-up to the RfC and the actions we'd be taking, I also explained why we decided to include Wikibooks in the sister project snippets display on enwiki in a comment to that posting. I've also replied on your phab ticket with the same information. Thanks, DTankersley (WMF) (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Deb. I replied at Phabricator. BTW, I can quote what is said below from the RfC discussion:

Wikibooks--Strong consensus to oppose.Almost every work is seemingly incomplete.A garble of poorly thought out info at best!

--George Ho (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Update: Another proposal to include Wikibooks as part of cross-wiki search results is made at WP:VPP. --George Ho (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for new requirement for AWB bots

I opened a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Should_bots_perform_multiple_edits_in_a_page.3F to raise the problem of multiple bots editing a single page and how we could optimise that using AWB bots to perform many tasks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

For clarity, since the linked discussion is something of a mess: The current bot policy is to allow AWB bots to include "general fixes" as long as they are approved to do so via WP:BRFA and as long as they do not make edits that violate WP:COSMETICBOT. Magioladitis proposes requiring that all bots (or possibly just all AWB bots) perform "general fixes" even if the operator does not wish to do so. Anomie 12:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Magioladitis has also proposed removing WP:COSMETICBOT entirely in an earlier section on that talk page, and has generally been agitating against WP:COSMETICBOT since it became an issue in his recent ArbCom case. Anomie 12:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Also note that WP:COSMETICBOT changed after the linked ArbCom case whose decision was based on the old definition. Also there is now an open discussion of the correct term of low volum edits. ArbCom suggested that the community has to re-examine these things. During the discussions it was made clear that an inbalance is created since in many cases BAG members would allow secondary edits or minor tasks only in combination of a different task. Note that even the title "COSMETICBOT" is subjct to change after many comments that show that dos not reflect correctly what does this policy tries to express.-- Magioladitis (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Again for clarity: ArbCom considered that the then-ongoing discussion to revise WP:COSMETICBOT (that resulted in the change Magioladitis refers to) satisfied their recommendation that the community re-examine that part of policy. Anomie 13:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any discussion about "the correct term of low volum [sic] edits", a link would be helpful. Anomie 13:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Anomie For clarity everyone is free to read the ArbCom and see what was actually proposed and what was the conclusion of the discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll point out to this old VPR thread" which concluded with pretty much the status quo. At the policy level, genfixes may be allowed, but they are not required. I don't understand what's so hard to get about this. This is getting to a pretty high level of WP:DEADHORSE/WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and right now I'm wondering if a topic ban isn't required.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb you just reported the current status. I claim that this is not enough because this does not constitute a solution. How can I make clearer this for you? We have the following:

  • We want low volume fixes to happen as a general concept
  • We don't want.

Then we have the follow options:

  • Allow bots to make low volume edits
  • Disallow them.
  • Allow them only under circumstances.

Then we have the following problems:

  • People claiming that a if a bot arrives too often to a page it clogs the watchlist
  • People claiming that if a bot arrives only once and does everything the edit is difficult to check.

The last two things are contradicting each other. Second threat that I will get a topic ban for opening the discussion and this is before a start the RfC for the concept and this is before the Bot issue in general reaches the Wikipedia Startegy for the next 15 years. Why is that? Wikipedia has over 5,000,000 pages and how the bots will work in such a big site is a general issue. The current changes in a policy page show that.

-- Magioladitis (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb This discussion is not a repeat of a question I did some onths ago. Because we can for instance create a superbot to do all in once. Not just "secondary" edits. We could find a way to meerge all major bots and major tools. This was th direction I am working many years now. ow it's time to start the discusion in the community for creating the superbot. But this requires more steps to convience people and the commmunity about it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you have tangible, concrete evidence to back that any of these supposed problems are actually problems? You'll also have to define some of your terms here, because they're certainly not terms I've seen before on Wikipedia. What is a "low volume" fix or "edit"? How do BRFAs somehow fail to make it clear what bot are and are not allowed to do, and under which circumstances they can be done? And yes the last two things contradict each other. Sometimes it can be too warm, sometimes it can be too cold. This doesn't mean I need to choose between a house where I'm cranking up the heat when it's 30°C outside to make sure it's not too cold, or bringing out liquid nitrogen to cool my house when it's –30°C outside to make sure it's not too hot. There is a spectrum of possibilities, and where on the spectrum of "does as much as it can" to "only does one specific thing" a bot's ideal location is depends greatly on the bot's task. Also, I have no idea what that supposed "Wikipedia Strategy for the Next 15 Years" is, but it's certainly nothing I've seen proposed on Wikipedia.
And concerning a "superbot", it again depends on which tasks you want it to do. If you're thinking about making a general fix bot, or a general checkwiki bot, I can see those being supported by the community, provided they abide by WP:BOTPOL and WP:COSMETICBOT/WP:BOTCOMM in particular. This might mean taking on T161467 and T138977, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Check Wikipedia#Identifying cosmetic fixes, and conducting a similar review for AWB genfixes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I prefer the term "low volume" than "cosmetic" which is also not defined. I am also still waiting evidence that bot edits hide vandalism. The ArbCom case endd and still nobody brought any statistics. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Two things. 1) Don't be surprised if no one can understand you. Cosmetic has a definition and is a term the Wikipedia community has used for ages, "low-volume" is something you made up. 2) no one cares if you are personally convinced this is an issue, and even if the watchlist bug is fixed, it does not invalidate the general idea behind the prohibition of cosmetic edits, since the hiding vandalism concern is only part of the rationale behind the prohibition, not the entire rationale for it. Vandalism isn't even mentioned in WP:COSMETICBOT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
"Cosmetic" as definition limits itself to bots as far as I understand since it is only mentioned in the Bots' policy page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Th same problem of "understanding" holds for others and not only for me since here is a page for general discussion and your comment is far too technical I think. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
RexxS, this "Wikipedia Startegy for the next 15 years", is that what we were talking about in the pub on 21 May 2017? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Yes: meta:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017 and the associated pages. --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • This is an obvious non-starter, we don't do "requirements" (as far as forcing people to make certain types of edits), and forcing AWB bot operators (who generally fall on the less experienced side) to add tasks outside their expertise is going to cause more problems than it solves. –xenotalk 17:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am probably one of the most prolific AWB users on Wikipedia - at least half a million of my edits were made using this tool. I have used AWB for everything from simple typo correction to creating entire series of new articles, but the primary use to which I have put it is disambiguation link fixing. When so doing, it is important to be able to clearly and concisely see, as the editor, all fixes being made with each edit. When a substantial number of cosmetic fixes are included in such a fix, the disambiguation fix can be obscured. This is particularly the case where the cosmetic changes causes a paragraph to shift up, and the entire paragraph is highlighted as changed, obscuring changes within its text. I would note, however, that this can be fixed by improvements to AWB that highlight the noncosmetic changes in some manner that is different from the cosmetic changes. bd2412 T 19:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

These comments are really good because they show that clarity of edits is more important than watchlists. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The clarity of edits is ONE aspect, to be balanced against other aspects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is important to balance all effects. If watchlist load is a concern, then we must also consider the effect of having to edit the same article multiple times to correct an error that was missed because it was obscured by the volume of automated changes being made to a page. bd2412 T 21:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comments at the original discussion from just this week as well as shake my head a bit at the forum shopping. ~ Rob13Talk 00:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
What do you oppose exactly? I did not make any concrete proposal yet. I started a discussion before coming with a proposal based on opinions. As you see I presented the various pathways the community could take. Please stop jumping into conclusions and discouraging people from participicating in Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Your thread here is titled "proposal...", and you have stated in the linked discussion " I ask to require bot owners to do more in a signle edit the same way it is required(?) for some valid edits to be done only in addition to other edits."[1]. This seems concrete enough and rather clear about "which" pathway you want the community to take. It is rather disingenious to now state that you have not made a proposal... Fram (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The proposal is not here about the bot. It is about the policy. First we have to examine the policy and then create the bot. So in this page we are now I made no proposal. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are replying to here. Of course your proposal is about the policy, and all comments and opposes are about your propsal to change the policy. "Create the bot" is not even on the table. It is very hard discussing things with you when what you mean is often completely different to what most other people read in your comments. Fram (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Fram I aam not in favour or against any pathway. I am OK either way as long as ALL the edits are done. If the community for clearness needs the bot to visit the page multiple times I 'll go this direction. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The community seems quite happy with how most bots and operators work, and with the frequency of bot updates to most pages. Some tasks can easily be combined, some tasks should be kept separate for clarity. Bot requests usually deal with this kind of thing, and discussion with bot owners if things get messy or complicated. Only one editor seems to have a real problem with this. So perhaps you should first have a discussion to see if people really see the same problem as you do, and only then try to find solutions? Fram (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Maybe we should think about this idea from a different perspective for a moment.

I think that, overall, the core community tolerates AWB and bot editors, but does not love them. They're useful, but we're also annoyed by them sometimes, even when we agree that the specific changes are ideal. For example, everyone loves having refs properly filled in, but nobody really loves reading the resulting lengthy diff, especially if these fixes are mixed with a dozen content and/or vandalism edits.

But here's a question: Since these edits are already annoying us, are there any advantages to getting all of the annoyance over with all at once? Or at least getting some slightly more important genfixes (not all of which are cosmetic) over with at the same time? Think of it as sort of a "tax" on using AWB: if you're using AWB to change <ref>Example</ref>. to .<ref>Example</ref>, then maybe you should also have to let AWB remove pointless <ref /> tags at the same time. This is a good edit, even if the diff is long, but what makes me happiest about it is that it fixed two kinds of problems in the same edit – the reference formatting plus a genfix. This means that (a) the page is better now than it was before, especially from the POV of any readers who had previously seen "800" at the end of the line and "mg/day" at the start of the next line, and (b) nobody's going to have to make those genfixes later, which means one fewer diff for the rest of us to look through.

I don't want all of the genfixes done in every edit, but is there any good reason against having all AWB automatically always do a few of them? We'd have to talk about which ones, but why not pick a few that have low potential for problems (here, I am thinking of BD2412's comments about being able to read the diffs, but we would also want to consider the probability of a particular genfix not being wanted in any given edit) and are relatively important for editors and readers (e.g., adding non-breaking spaces)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Yes, this is avery good idea. We should find the golden ratio between readbility of diffs and not making a lot of edits in a single page. Very nice comment. Really appreciated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: The negative is that I (and many others) who don't like running someone else's buggy code will just stop using AWB and developing bots with it. There are currently zero requirements to do anything on Wikipedia. Editors help out how and where they'd like to. If a requirement is added here, AWB will just see lower use. ~ Rob13Talk 21:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
BU Rob13 No need to run the "buggy(???) parts". You can stick in the OK parts of choose which oart you can understand to run. It can even be a combination of two useful tasks you do. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Me, Bgwhite and other we wer co-writing code and we had no problem running "someone else's buggy code" because we were reporting bugs and ficing them in regular basis. We were removing tasks that were controversial and adding new tasks that were useful. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
There is some confusion here. Is the proposal to require operators to do something, or to let them choose what they want (which is the current situation)? If it is required, it can't be chosen. If it can be chosen, then it isn't required. So what is the precise proposal - to require something, or not? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Rob, is all the code for genfixes buggy? Or is only some of it buggy, and we could pick only a fraction of the non-buggy parts? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: My concern isn't about specific bugs, although I've seen many and often been met with little urgency when they've been pointed out. The problem is that I don't want to be responsible for someone else's code that I cannot change or fix. When I make any edit on Wikipedia (manual, semi-auto, auto), I take responsibility for that edit. I can be sanctioned based on its contents if it violates policy, such as WP:COSMETICBOT, which has been a major issue with genfixes for quite a while. If AWB screws up and makes a genfixes-only edit when it shouldn't (this is an actual bug that existed in the past, don't know if it was fixed), that's a violation I'm responsible for, even though I have no control over that code. Do you see how that seriously puts off editors from using AWB? Further, it makes it much harder for me to test a bot task or semi-auto task because I have to wade through horrendous diffs with multiple fixes. I don't want to do that nor do I have the time to do that when I'm reviewing a 1,000 edit trial, either as a bot operator or as a BAG member, so I just wouldn't. ~ Rob13Talk 14:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

CBM if you read carefully the entire discussion I am exploring the various alternatives we have based on comments like yours and others. I try to initiate a discussion that at the end of the day we will all be happy. I am not coming with ready answers and I don't claim the ultimate truth. I proposed various perspectives and possibilities. Maybe my title is not the best one but it was suppose to only link to a different place at the beginning. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Btw, this is a very good edit. Minor issues fixed in a single edit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I did read the entire discussion - the title is Proposal for new requirement for AWB bots. What is the requirement you are proposing? Whenever someone asks what the requirement, you seem to indicate there is no requirement. As for my edit, it was not done by a bot, nor by AWB, which removes two significant issues. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
"Required" on Wikipedia is more of a continuum than a binary state, for anything except the spam blacklist (which is enforced in software). I expect that if we "required" AWB users to do some fixes, then the rule would change from something like "this huge set of genfixes strictly optional, and you have to get permission in advance via BRFA to use it" to "this small subset of genfixes is strongly encouraged, so if you don't want to do it, then your BRFA application should explain why you don't want to". I don't think that we would actually prohibit people from using AWB if they had a halfway-plausible reason for kicking that can down the road (to the next bot or AWB user). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
And if they just silently disable to genfixes in AWB without mentioning it? Your proposal was for "AWB automatically always" to do them, which sounds different from what you just wrote. I think it will be better to leave this discussion for a while until a concrete recommendation is actually made, and the goalposts stop moving with each comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it's important to try out all the different sizes, shapes, and locations of goalposts in a discussion like this, so that we can find the best arrangement.
If you explicitly agreed (i.e., at BRFA) that you would do an AWB task with Genfixes #392b (or whatever) turned on, and someone noticed that you didn't (and cared enough to mention it), then I think that we'd probably talk about why you did that. Is the script buggy? Did you have problems with it? I imagine that deliberate dishonesty (e.g., "Sure, I said I'd do that, but I never actually intended to do it. I just thought I'd be more likely to get approval if I agreed to help with this") would result in loss of authorization. But I really doubt that would happen. It's been my experience that editors here are very honest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: To be clear, there is currently zero functionality in AWB to run some genfixes but not others. There exists a module that you can install and manually edit to run only some of the genfixes, but that's not a function in the software (it requires external code), and it's not something I would expect most AWB operators to know how to edit/run. ~ Rob13Talk 14:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure, genfixes is a package deal at the moment, but (a) some people have already figured out how to run only some of them, and (b) if this were a desirable direction, then presumably that could be changed. Perhaps AWB users would be given an option in the software that would allow them to choose between "run all the genfixes" or "run only the five genfixes that AWB users have determined are the most important and the least likely to make messy diffs". At the moment, there's no point in creating that code, but if it were wanted, then I think it would be possible to do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: There's definitely a point in creating that code. I've been asking for it for over a year, I believe. If I could check "off" the whitespace edits, bypassing redirects, etc. and only do substantive fixes (major layout issues on pages, fixing broken links, etc.), I would use that frequently. I don't use genfixes now because there are many largely-useless changes in there that make it impossible to run while thoroughly reviewing the diffs at a decent speed in a semi-auto setting. In the past, the response I've received is that this functionality is not desirable because we "should" run all the genfixes, not just some. There has been push-back from the side that wants these edits because allowing editors to run just the useful changes would possibly lower the amount of editors running the ones many consider of negligible benefit. Of course, note that this is all relevant to the semi-auto situation, not auto, where we still have the "not my code, but I'm responsible" problem. ~ Rob13Talk 18:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there any way of adding a reference to every paragraph in an article automajically?

Hi all

I'm working with a new editor who has created a lot of new articles but has unfortunatley forgotten to add inline citations. Is there a way (maybe using AWB?) to quickly add a reference to the end of every paragraph of an article? It would be a different reference for every article.


--John Cummings (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No. How would AWB (or any other tool) know which references you want to append? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I guess in essence what I want to do is the create a reference, reuse it and then repeat that reuse at the end of every paragraph. Can AWB recognise the end of a paragraph? --John Cummings (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
John Cummings How many paragraphs are you talking about? It only takes a couple of seconds to reuse a citation — I would think using AWB would be overkill unless there are dozens of paragraphs not worth the time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You can just use named references for that.

Paragraph 1.<ref name=REF1>Reference 1</ref>

Paragraph 2.<ref name=REF1/>

Paragraph 3.<ref name=REF1/>

will give

Paragraph 1.[1]

Paragraph 2.[1]

Paragraph 3.[1]

  1. ^ a b c Reference 1

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Headbomb, I think what I'm looking for is an automated way of adding <ref name=REF1/> at the end of every paragraph once I've done the first one. --John Cummings (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't exist. But there is CTRL+C / CTRL+V / copy paste. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
You could download the page source using<page>&action=raw, and open that source in more powerful editors, or process it by any tool, like sed. The issue is mostly to copy the results back into the browser's source editor if the article is large. Bots mostly function this way, they get the source, obtain an edit token via the API, to then HTTP POST the new article/section version directly. What would be nice would be to be able to send the edited source back via POST+preview-mode (assuming the edit token and session are known to this out-of-browser tool) in a special mode that would return a temporary GET url to open in a browser tab and obtain the browser preview mode... I think that the current API does not allow this, necessitating browser plugins and/or JS gadgets to bridge between the browser and external tools for human-assisted edits that should return to the in-browser preview/submit mode... —PaleoNeonate - 19:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
But I'm not sure that what you want to do would result in good referencing. Do you mean that each article is only referenced by a single source and a single page of that source? If so, will not the result be lacking sources and/or precision anyway? —PaleoNeonate - 19:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Nihongo cite template always co-printing with unusual typeset question mark

When using the Nihongo template for Japanese character typesetting, the text is always co-printed with a unusual question mark always superimposed in the article. See for example Tokyo Story. The infobox and especially the cast section are all co-printed with this unneeded question mark for Japanese characters that appear to be perfectly fine for the entire cast section. This occurs in nearly all Japanese films and does not appear sensible or useful. Can these superimposed question marks be dropped. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The small question mark after Japanese text marked with {{Nihongo}} like in "Shūkichi Hirayama (平山 周吉, Hirayama Shukichi)" is a piped link to Help:Installing Japanese character sets. Some users will see placeholder symbols instead of the Japapanse text. The page cannot determine what users see and only display it to those who don't see the intended Japanese text. Use {{Nihongo4}} to omit it.[2] This is mentioned at Template:Nihongo#See also. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
That worked well. The Nihongo4 should be the default for the Nihongo family of templates since this affects the dozens and dozens of Cast sections for Japanese films that use this template. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
{{Nihongo}} is used in 80330 pages so "dozens and dozens" don't amount to much. Most of the pages probably don't have a list of uses in the same section like a cast list. It seems sensible that the default is to include the link. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Seems to me there should be some sort of css/lua magic we could do so only the first instance of the help link on a given page displayed. —Cryptic 18:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I have serious questions about whether that question mark still makes any sense to begin with. Japanese and Simplified Chinese are probably the best supported 'non-standard' scripts out there. This was intended for the days of Windows XP and explorer 6, but you can't even connect to Wikipedia with that anymore, so maybe it's time to shelve those question marks ? —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 08:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Which reminded me that there was actually a discussion on that going on: Template_talk:Nihongo#Remove_the_question_mark.3FTheDJ (talkcontribs) 08:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Thanks for your comment. Some other editors have also commented on this situation with a linked discussion. I think your point about 80,000 pages would normally make sense, however, in practice the template gives the correct orthography 99 percent of the time. That means that, in approximate numbers, that for every 79,200 appearances out of 80,000 the question mark is not informative. Any chance that you could remove the question mark as the default based on the linked discussion. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
It was removed two days ago.[3] If you still see it in a page then it either uses another template or can be fixed with a purge. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
That's good news. It looks like nihongo3 is still forcing the question marks into the text as in: Ran (film). JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Text wrap on right of an mbox

Hi there. I'm trying to fix the layout at Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois, particularly the two population templates lost way down at the bottom right. You can see my fix at User:Magnolia677/sandbox. Unfortunately, in my fix the demographics section looks wonky because of all the white space at the top. Is there a way to get text to wrap on the right, around a left-aligned mbox? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I added "float:left" to the mbox style in your sandbox, and I think it gets you what you want. What do you think? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: I actually poked around first looking for a style guide for this template, but couldn't find anything specific. Thanks for your help! Magnolia677 (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: Assuming you mean {{mbox}}, the lack of a style guide would be because it's not really intended to be used for content like that. I'll stop short of asserting that the usage is invalid or inappropriate, and just say that it's unusual and not the intended use of the mbox-small-left CSS class (as far as I'm aware). Murph9000 (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


Can some people please indicate how they see the following two ways to write down fractions:

  • {{frac|2|1|2}}: 2 12
  • 2{{frac|1|2}}: 212

To me (most recent Firefox on Windows), the first one looks like (2 to the first power) / 2, with the three numbers of roughly equal small size. The second looks like a standard 2 and then a small 1/2. MOS:FRAC prescribes {{frac|2|1|2}}, but (for me) this is much less clear, much harder to interpret when reading an article. Of course, if I am the only one with this problem (or if others get the same result but don't see it as a problem), nothing needs to change. Otherwise, either the frac template or the prescription at MOS:FRAC should be corrected. Fram (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Various displays
@Fram: see image screenshots to the right, the biggest difference I'm seeing is the spacing between the whole number and the fraction component - in all versions. — xaosflux Talk 14:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I think I agree using chrome on win7.
<span class="nowrap">&#8202;</span><span class="frac nowrap">2<span class="visualhide">&nbsp;</span><sup>1</sup>&frasl;<sub>2</sub></span>
2<span class="nowrap">&#8202;</span><span class="frac nowrap"><sup>1</sup>&frasl;<sub>2</sub></span>
It seems to me that the integer is misplaced in the first example and that it should be within the first span tag preceding the hairspace character; like this perhaps:
<span class="nowrap">2&#8202;</span><span class="frac nowrap"><span class="visualhide">&nbsp;</span><sup>1</sup>&frasl;<sub>2</sub></span>
2  12
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
what Fram sees

Thanks, both of you. I have added a screenshot of what I see as well, so you may get a better idea of why I discuss this. Fram (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I use Vector, no css or other fancy scripts, and show math as " MathML with SVG or PNG fallback (recommended for modern browsers and accessibility tools)" I have the gadget " Vector classic typography (use only sans-serif in Vector skin)" enabled. I think these are the only ones that might affect this. Fram (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

But neither the math setting nor the Vector classic typography one have any effect on this apparently... I'm confused on what might cause this now. Fram (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That top display on yours is defiantly bad - we should try to focus on where that is coming from as it could be reader-impacting. — xaosflux Talk 14:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Clearly part of the problem is that there isn't any space between the integer and the fraction which is why I suggested that the template output is wrong in how it positions the integer. Perhaps the correct output should be this:
<span class="frac nowrap">2&#8202;<span class="visualhide">&nbsp;</span><sup>1</sup>&frasl;<sub>2</sub></span>
2  12
I'm not clear on the purpose of this tag:
<span class="visualhide">&nbsp;</span>
Removing it doesn't seem to change the rendered output for me on chrome:
<span class="frac nowrap">2&#8202;<sup>1</sup>&frasl;<sub>2</sub></span>
2 12
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
That gives for me the correct result (with a larger 2), so this may be all that needs to be done. But I'll wait for some further reactions to see whether others have the same problem or even better solutions. Fram (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@trappist: Regarding the visualHide tag. It's to force screenreaders to add a 'space' between the two characters. I don't see how the position should influence it. Its just seems correct to me.. Maybe a gadget or something is interfering ? or a browser gadget ? —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm all for accessibility so keeping the visualhide is proper. I don't think that I understand you comment about position. I was not talking about the position of the visualhide tag but was talking about the position of the integer portion of the fraction. In Fram's first example there is no hairspace between the integer and the numerator portion of the fraction. I think that there should be.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Fram: Does it look the same in this link ? [4] ? How about in a different browser ? —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@TheDJ: Thanks! In safemode, I get (for the problematic version) now a large 2, then a space, and then the fraction. So you seem to be on the right track here :-) Fram (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Fram: Then it's either a userscripts/style (which you don't seem to have), a gadget (most likely) or a piece of site wide styling. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 08:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. It would be great if someone else had the same problem, that would make it easier to really pinpoint the issue, but until then I seem to be the only one affected so I'll have to live with it (I'm not going to test all combinations of gadgets for something I encounter only sprodaically anyway). Fram (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Some more: I don't get the issue in Chrome (logged in or logged out), but I do get it in Firefox even when I'm logged out. So this would seem to suggest that it is not a gadget, but some Firefox setting / combination with OS or other add-ons on my part. I have very few add-ons installed though, nothing fancy. Anyway, thanks for your time, but unless others have the same problem I thnk it is not useful to spend too long on this. Fram (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is this not being discussed at Template talk:Frac? There have been several changes over the years concerning spacing and character size, some of them were aimed at improving accessibility (Graham87, are you awake yet?), so let's not compromise the hard work that various people have done in the past. For instance, the visualhide class has been there since this edit three and a half years ago, by Edokter (talk · contribs); WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 143#Spacing of mixed numbers was contemporary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Redrose64: Thanks for the ping, but all I've done for the frac template is make the slash usable with screen readers in {{sfrac}}. I'm not sure I can help out any further. Graham87 07:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Because a) I wasn't sure the problem was with the template and not some other issue, and b) in my experience you get much better results discussing something like this at VPT than at a template talk page. Fram (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


Please comment there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Canmt S&R edit any more

Right now, I can not edit by "search and replace" any more. -DePiep (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It works for me. Which feature is it about? I use "Enhanced editing toolbar with wizards" at "Help:Edit toolbar", click "Advanced" and then the icon Vector toolbar search-replace button.png at the right. What is your skin and browser? What goes wrong? PrimeHunter (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


I have the above script installed, but can't seem to access its functions. Nothing changes as far as I can tell on any of the interfaces I use - I also use WP:POPUPS but nothing seems to change there either. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 10:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Zeke, did it ever work for you? When did it stop working? Do you see any warnings or errors in your JS console (ignore various CSS warnings which are most likely from hacks to support badly implemented Microsoft code in old versions of IE)? Murph9000 (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It has never worked for me that I can tell. I certainly have never been able to use it. Using my console's search feature I can find no reference to this script. It has loads upon loads of warnings, though, all for "deprecated" parts of webpages or something and displaying CSS warnings has been disabled. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 10:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Zeke, it looks like User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty "left the building" in February 2014. So, I'd guess the script just isn't compatible with changes made to MW or WP since then. The script on ES-WP has not been updated since then. I suggest removing it from your config, and using a more current tool. Murph9000 (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Might as well. I'm also going to put a note at Wikipedia:User scripts/List next to this one if that's okay. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 11:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Zeke, the Mad Horrorist and Murph9000: I've just used the script to disambiguate a bunch of pages, and it seems to be working fine to me. Go to a disambiguation page, then click on the "Disambiguate links" option in the actions menu (the "More" dropdown menu on the top-right if you're using the Vector skin). Then you should see a big blue box appear underneath the page title. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: Thank you so much! That brings me much closer to understanding how to use this script properly. Perhaps when I'm done here I can write some documentation for it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I just did something with this script (finally). I don't know how it chooses among what links to a disambig page since it doesn't bring up all the relevant links but I finally did something with the script here. Many thanks for your help. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

For three disambig pages I accidentally created unneeded "X (disambiguation)" redirects, all of which I've put up for WP:G7 speedy deletion. I don't know how the script is making me do that, but in all three cases the script found nothing to disambiguate, yet I've visited several pages now that had no incoming links worth disambiguating and I did not leave such needless redirects behind. Perhaps I clicked a wrong button somewhere... Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: You mean $1000 (disambiguation), 2K16 (disambiguation) and 2K14 (disambiguation)? There was nothing wrong with creating those - indeed, WP:INTDAB encourages it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I simply made them in error and found them unlikely to be useful. I'm not opposed to having them, but I won't revive them myself (EDIT: On the other hand, I might as well, if someone is going to anyway - as the link you provided says that's the practice nowadays). I'm also not keen on repeating those mistakes especially if they're truly unwanted, so I have to figure out what about the script made that happen - as well as what else it can do that might cross the wrong lines. The three pages to which these links redirected were among those I experimented using the script on. They were the only ones where this happened. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Expanding edit box

This might be the wrong place, but I can't find where else to ask, does anyone how to expand the edit box? It used to be as simple as going into Preferences -> Editing, but it's not there anymore, any help would be appreciated. YellowStahh (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@YellowStahh: You can expand it by dragging the box larger. The drag control may vary depending on your OS & browser, but try dragging the bottom-right corner out. Absolutely no warranty on this next bit, use at your own risk. It could cause you problems if it's ever set too large for the device you are using at the time. If you are not comfortable playing around with CSS stuff, it may not be for you. Try adding something like the following to your common.css, to set the default height:
body.action-edit #wpTextbox1 {
	height: 666px;
Murph9000 (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 153#Edit box size. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Awesome, that's great it looks so much better to view now, thanks very much. YellowStahh (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Another Recent Changes edit filter problem

I have "Mostly good edits" in green, "May be bad edits" in yellow, "Likely bad edits" in orange, and "Very likely bad edits" in red as my filter setup (I call it "Patrollers' choice" since I like to patrol the recent changes), but it doesn't highlight any of the edits (but it does highlight experienced users' edits in blue, and I didn't tick on either three of them) unless at least any one of the eight checkboxes are ticked. (yes, I'm talking about my setup for both Contribution quality and User intent prediction filters) If the problem is already being discussed at wherever my last discussion about a now-fixed bug was being talked about, you may feel free to move this discussion there too. -- MrHumanPersonGuy (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit: I just went back to the Recent Changes thing, and the filter has [sic] highlit edits green, yellow, orange and red (with all eight boxes unchecked) again. -- MrHumanPersonGuy (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


I requested a change at MediaWiki talk:Edittools#Protected edit request on 13 June 2017 to reflect recent changes at Help:IPA for English. However, each letter of ɑːr, ɔːr, ɔər, ɜːr has become a separate button as opposed to four buttons as intended. Anyone know how to fix this? Nardog (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Redirection correction software

Hello everybody,
I'm trying to correct some articles for redirection... So, when I see a link to a redirected article, I try to replace it with the final article (the one leading the redirect), so people know if they opened a page or not (for example, if A person wants to compare several different elements). The question is: Is there a WikiLabs application to allow this or another thing?
--Anas1712 (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

(Translated by Google Traduction)

@Anas1712: It's not entirely clear to me exactly what you want to do, or where you want to do it. Please do not indiscriminately "correct" any redirects on English Wikipedia, per WP:NOTBROKEN. They should only be changed if the link via a redirect goes to the wrong target, or there is actually some other error being corrected. If it's on some other wiki where that policy does not apply (and local policies prefer to change them), it could probably be done using pywikibot. Murph9000 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Murph9000: What I would do is the modifications that I did this morning and that you undo... It's possible that in other wikis, it's done (personnaly, I edit most in French wiki but there are more infos to read in English wiki). Thank you for saying me that it isn't correct.--Anas1712 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict)
P.S.: Is it here the right section to ask the question? Because English Pump is so difficult compare to French Bistrot.
@Anas1712: Other wikis often copy English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but each community determines their own policies and their local interpretation of any that they take from us. So, you'll need to check with the local community on each wiki to find out what they prefer. Note that operating a bot to make large scale changes would usually require a proposal, discussion, consensus, and approval (that is required on English WP). Yes, "Village pump (technical)" is usually a reasonable place to ask about tools, or one of the other VP pages if it's not technical / tools. I believe it's roughly equivalent to the French WP's Bistro pages. Murph9000 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Murph9000: Oh, on French Wikipedia, you ask to the main page of the bistro and after you get redirected, maybe it's that stupid french "habitude" of being lazy... (I'm Belgian). Here you must choose one section and after you post your message. That's why I don't go so much on the Pump --Anas1712 (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata bot reversion of vandalism

On Wikidata, there is an insubstantial amount of obvious vandalism which goes unnoticed for ages, likely because there just aren't enough people to take care of it (I had to spend more than an hour and a half today putting new item descriptions from the last two weeks through Google Translate), and there aren't really any bots which revert vandalism for some reason. If you have any experience running a bot which reverts vandalism, or writing software which helps in the reversion of vandalism, it would be very nice if you could comment on the Wikidata project chat. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
16:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Website link appearing in the infobox without being in the coding.

A link to a czech website appeared in the infobox of Mayday (Canadian TV series), presented as the show's official website. However the link isn't actually present in the article's source code. I have been able to successfully hide it through adding a blank website field to the infobox. However the link is still present somewhere. It reappears once you remove the website field. It should be removed altogether as it is by no means the official website and links should not appear like that. Trouble is I don't know where it actually is situated in the coding. I'm reporting it here because I think this might constitute a safety issue.Tvx1 18:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: d:Q527965 is the place you need to fix. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Right, the general answer is that some infoboxes and other templates pull information from Wikidata. Click "Wikidata item" under "Tools" in the left pane of the desktop version of the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that. I see Izno has beaten me to it.Tvx1 20:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. --Izno (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The Czech website was imported from the Czech Wikipedia by a bot.[5][6] That sounds like a recipe for inappropriate links. I don't know whether Wikidata bots still do this. It's still listed in the Czech Wikipedia and sounds sensible there but not in Wikidata when the subject is not Czech. Wikidata correctly says "country of origin: Canada". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Truncated math expressions on Edge

screenshot of truncated mathematical expression.

For example Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC).

I just noticed this earlier, in the caption of the first image in the Amplitude article. I've opened phab:T168863. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-26

15:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Small audio icon player

In the page voy:it:Inglese#Vocali I 'd like to substitute the current icon with a player that once clicked will not force the page change.

Thanks to User:DePiep has been found this solution:

Unfortunately it doesn't work on mobile view.

  • There's a way to show it on both view?
  • There's a way to show a different icon/symbol?

As a potential fix for the first point we have tried:

  • mobile:
    Loudspeaker light blue.svg
  • desktop:

but since nomobile class works and nodesktop/mobileonly don't, it's not a complete solution.

Any idea? --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

My recap: this template allows playing an audio sound without opening an other window. However, that same elementary setup shown in mobile does not show any working button. This question is proposing to use two buttons, one with class="nomobile" and the other class effective as class="nodesktop" (i.e. the exact opposite). If there is such a class, what is it s name? -DePiep (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Edit, Fixed wrong classname, should be "nomobile". -DePiep (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Pages with template loops

I'm not sure why Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mississippi is in this category.

(Most of the members are user pages incorrectly implementing {{Statustop}} of similar.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: After a lot of guessing, fixed with Special:Diff/787652794 - the project banner was trying to display the "to do" subpage, and the "to do" subpage had been tagged with a project banner. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Good catch! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC).
The question is, why was a project banner put on the to-do page? It's intended for a list of thinks that need doing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox chemical element on mobile

Why chemical element infoboxes display unfloated to the right but span whole page width on mobile view? Example:

I guess {{Infobox element/periodic table}} is what should be corrected (there we have width:100%;).

Also, infobox title loads with black background and dark grey text so it is unreadable (in some other infoboxes this happens too; color flashes are sometimes present too).

-- (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed the 'micro' periodic table in there is too wide (for an other reason than you mention). Already a current discussion here at WT:ELEMENTS on this. (Warning: an other discussion there is making that page nearing 600k size). -DePiep (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
That discussion is on removing or keeping navigation, what should not be replacement (excuse) for (not) fixing width problem; I want to say that width problem can be fixed also without removing navigation.
What do you think causes infobox to span whole page width if it's not width:100%; in {{Infobox element/periodic table}}? -- (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
In this specific case, it's mostly that table cells inside infoboxes have a default padding of 7px when viewed on the mobile skin, and the template does not account for this. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 22:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
FixedTheDJ (talkcontribs) 22:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
re IP: it does, further down.
re TheDJ: thx. -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

GA nomination has been assessed but article's Talk page does not update

The nomination to Carroll Baker has been assessed but the Talk page updates have not taken place in order to update status and to notify the nominator here: [10]. Could someone look at this? JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks OK to me. Maybe the page just needed a purge. If you still see a problem then please be specific about it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Normally Legobot sends a notification to the nominator of the article once the assessment is started as it was here:[11]. In this case no notification was sent to the nominator and then I added a manual ping in order to try to let the nominator know that the assessment started. Legobot did not send the notification to the nominator since yesterday and I cannot see why it failed, possibly its related to the article going through three cycles of nominations. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
A missing Legobot edit sounds like a question for the operator. Your attempted ping [12] probably failed the first bullet at mw:Manual:Echo#Technical details. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Query at Template talk:Quote box

If anyone has any advice on how to set two separate quotes and their respective source/credit, stacked in a single quote box, it would be much appreciated. Please weigh in at Template talk:Quote box#Setting two short quotes in the one quote box. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

transcluding page heading that uses translate tags

Hi all

I'm trying to transclude section of a page for a project I'm working on (the page is on Meta here) however I'm running into to some problems:

  1. The transclusion is not able to see the section headings, I think this is being caused by the fact the headings have translate tags around them.
  2. I also have a problem where if I transclude the entire page I get all the translate tags visible.

Any ideas of how to fix these problems?


--John Cummings (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Transclusion with multiple labelled exclusions


I'm trying to transclude a page but exclude multiple small sections, I'm looking at Help:Labeled_section_transclusion and Wikipedia:Transclusion and it is possible to transclude a page whilst removing a labelled section but I want to exclude multiple labelled sections, is this possible? Basically I want something like {{#section-x:fullpagename|label1 + label2+ label3 }}


--John Cummings (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA