Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 28

Village pump
- Policy
- Technical
- Proposals (persistent)
- Idea lab
- WMF
- Miscellaneous

Village pump (technical) archive

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (technical). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217

IE7 shortcuts interfering with editing

When I am editing an article, sometimes the IE7 shortcut for 'Back' (backspace) will somehow slip outside the text box and send me back a page. Going forward again takes me back to the edit page with all my work lost. How do I disable these shortcuts?

76.232.94.181 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

~~If you create an account you can solve this problem; go to your preferences, click gadgets, then check the 'disable access keys' box. That'll fix your problem.~~ -- penubag (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, that's a browser shortcut isn't it? Then what I said won't work. There may be a setting in your browser to fix this problem -- penubag (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can disable those shortcuts. But you can switch to Mozilla Firefox (It's free!). If you accidentally go back, your work will still be there when you go forward again. Or you can just be more careful and make sure the cursor is inside the text box before you hit backspace. If you switched tabs, for example, the cursor will not be in the text box. – FISDOF 9 20:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

problem with Image:group_rot180.png|150px

Can somebody help me figuring out why the image [[Image:group_rot180.png|150px]] looks like this:

(Note, that when you click at the image above, it shows the correct (newer) version of the image). Thanks. (The problem also shows up in Group (mathematics).) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have purged the page of the image, and this seems to have solved the problem. If you force a reload of articles in which this image is included, you shouldn't have any problem anymore. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Helping going away

Hi. Can you possibly tell me the best way to leave Wikipedia? I followed the instructions and asked an administrator to delete my user and talk pages. How does one write a password that can never be broken? Sorry if this is a FAQ. I do see it is not possible to delete an account nor do I wish to erase all that. Thank you. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, should I ask this question separately at Wikiquote, Wikinews, and Wikimedia Commons for those three accounts? -Susanlesch (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How does one write a password that can never be broken? - That's impossible; given enough time, any password can be broken. What's relevant is how strong a password is - how resistant to guessing. If you change your password to a lengthy set of more-or-less random characters, you can pretty much be guaranteed that no one is going to go through the time and effort to break it - they'll work on the passwords of Jimmy Wales or admins or other accounts that are much more valuable to break into. (And Wikipedia software has some features that prevent high-volume password guessing, which means that even mildly good passwords are more than enough.)

In short, of all the problems in the world, having your account compromised by someone guessing your password should rank pretty close to the bottom, assuming you don't have a trivial password like "password" or "123" or "nothing". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

John Broughton, sounds good. Thanks for your help. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Profile bar

Is there any way to customize the profile bar at the top of every page? It would be handy to be able to add "my sandbox". --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You could do this with your own custom javascript. Many examples are at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts and you might be able get help at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Requests. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See my JS page under the heading Personal Links. Adapt that to suit your own additions. Adrian M. H. 17:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

width of tables

If I make a wikitable like this:

Moderate length piece of text	Short text
Really really really really really really really really really really really really long piece of text

Both columns are expanded to keep the table balanced. Is there a way to make only the first column expand, leaving the second column only the minimum width (the width of "short text"?? Happy‑melon 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You can set the width to a specific amount in pixels, ems, or % (see Help:Table#Setting your column widths), which allows you to shrink it but not to the width of any particular text (you don't know what font the browser is using). If you set it too small but make the cell "nowrap", it does what I think you want (at least in Firefox - not sure how portable this would be), like the following -- Rick Block (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Moderate length piece of text	Short text
Really really really really really really really really really really really really long piece of text

I tried this in IE7 and it doesn't work as expected (IE7 sets the column width to the width value and then wraps the text, effectively ignoring the "nowrap"). -- Rick Block (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Total article numbers in categories

I hope I'm asking in the right place. Categories now seem to be able to give the total number of articles in them. This is great! However, why don't the "Wikify by month" categories show this total number? (For example, Category:Wikify from November 2007.) Related maintenance categories show it. Also, is there any way of parsing the total article number to another page? If at all possible, this would make updating the {{Wikification progress}} template much easier. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 14:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A {{PAGESINCATEGORY}} magic word has been proposed in bug 6943. Mr.Z-man 05:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Does anyone know why the "Wikify by month" categories don't show the total number of articles? The parent category does, as do other monthly maintenance categories: e.g., Category:Cleanup from November 2007, Category:Orphaned articles from November 2007. "Copyedit by month" categories seem to have this problem, too. – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Population of the number of items in a category is being done by a maintenance script (it's stored in the database as a number). As you may appreciate, there are a lot of categories for which this information needs to be generated. My understanding is that this is probably being done alphabetically, and the category you point to is at the end of the alphabet. — Werdna talk 11:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Two of the monthly categories (March 2007 and March 2008) are now displaying the total number, and I imagine the others will soon follow. However, is there any reason why the total number in March 2008 is inaccurate? At last count there were 1552 articles in that category, but the total number indicated was 275. Perhaps it's just an initial glitch, but in any case I hope it's fixed soon. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Range block bypass flag?

It's a difficult but not uncommon situation. There's an IP range which is used entirely for vandalism. Soft blocking hasn't helped, the track record goes on since forever... hard blocking's really called for... except a handful of genuine users use that range so you can't.

Is there any merit in a flag or right that any sysop can apply to an account (or remove), that lets them edit through an IP range block?

This would essentially mean that a range could be hard blocked in general, and yet specific editors in good standing still edit from those IPs. It wouldn't interfere with blocking that editor, but would mean either the flag would need deleting, or the block would need to be on their specific named account.

I would envisage the flag as being given based on sysop judgement that a range needed blocking and this was a measure to allow that to be done, and removed on sysop judgement that a user was intended to be caught by a range block. The thought being that users who are visibly decent editors enough that a hard range block (almost always for serious disrupters) shouldn't apply to them, probably won't be intended to be caught by a range block or need range blocking themselves that often. Blocks of users like that are almost always placed on their names, not their IP range, by sysops.

It would then allow hard blocking of a range used by a hard-core problem case, for a week or a month or whatever, without so much collateral damage for a clearly well-meaning user on that range.

Thoughts?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. It'd make some cases of IP-hopping vandalism easier to deal with. I imagine it'd make CU's lives easier, too. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Look similar to Wikipedia:IP block exemption. But I have no idea how to "exempt" a user, even though it says its possible. And since when is anyone allowed to edit from Tor!? But yea, this could be a useful flag, if it were limited to say Crats/CUs, since I wouldn't trust Admins to make the call or be easy to monitor. MBisanz ^talk 08:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm reminded of prior proposals to allow unblocking of single IPs within blocked ranges, or to hand out ipblock-exempt via whatever mechanism (most proposals there have focused on open proxies, but rangeblocks are likewise an important issue; the right makes a user effectively immune to anything but a direct block on their account). I'm not sure as to the technical difficulty/ease of a similar flag that would focus solely on rangeblocks, or if this folds into the debates on ipblock-exempt. Either way, the situation FT2 describes has no easy solution, currently, and this might be one fix to consider trying. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, it's not for proxy avoidance, and I'd be more than happy to see its use limited to "users who would otherwise be caught by vandalism or personal attack range-blocks, or the like" or issued by checkusers, rather than proxies. A technical measure for that would be that it would only override an IP range not a single IPblock. (Open proxies are almost always sole IPs.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This was one of the reasons for the Wikipedia:IP block exemption proposal - accounts frequently caught in autoblocks/rangeblocks but who are nevertheless good users would be made immune to such blocks in the same ways as admins are by being assigned IPblock-exempt. WjBscribe 09:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

After some earlier edit warring it became a policy a few days ago. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The important bit is the devs agreeing to enable it - after the fuss over rollback, I could understand them being reluctant :-) .... WjBscribe 09:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

...devs not wanting to be called 'devils'? :) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Brion its on his to-do list, so it should just be a matter of time now. Mr.Z-man 15:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If admins will be involved in either noticing suspicious user with the ipblockexempt flag or de-flagging bad users, can we add something to the new admin school. Rollback was a good idea, but there was precious little training on it, even though we all knew hat it is. I suspect at least half the admins have no idea what ip-block-exempt is or that there is a policy on it. MBisanz ^talk 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that's a good thing. Unlike rollback, this isn't the kind of thing to give out simply based on trust - there should be trust and need. Mr.Z-man 22:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Agree. Dodgy unblocking of proxies by putting holes in them and (accidentally or otherwise) letting bad actors back in, is a favorite use of non-hard blocks, and this will have applications in that area. Since we probably wont be handling this out like confetti, maybe a "request for ipexemption" subpage - same as many other "request" pages... user posts a request and if there is broad consensus (remember this isn't handed out as a norm to all users) then it's given. That way it has some certainty of communal input. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

maybe a "request for ipexemption" subpage... I think this idea has not been discussed at the policy talk page yet. Anyway, I support it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind, though, that blocked users will have difficulty posting to such a page. If requests are to be resolved via a central forum, we'd probably need to be watching for (and harvesting) relevant unblock requests. Not a huge problem, just making sure that's on the table. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exemption#Requesting_exemption. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

p-batch

Hi, I recently had an anon IP vandal systematically attacking all the pages I've created or edited; when I was in his contributions page, I tried to do a p-batch to semi-protect all for a short while but nothing happened. Is there a problem here? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(A google search on Wikipedia pages for the term "p-batch" comes up empty, by the way.) Have you looked at User:AzaToth/twinklebatchprotect.js?

A-ha! I'll ask Azatoth, if it's one of his bits 'n bobs. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes to CSD templates

I'm pleased to announce that we have just concluded a complete overhaul of the db- template series, as written by by User:Coppertwig, User:Moonriddengirl and myself. The rewrite does not (as far as I'm aware) incorporate any breaking changes, but there are several modifications which may be of interest to the technically-minded:

All templates now support a |bot= parameter; any tags placed by bots should specify their username as this parameter to trigger the display a of a short note indicating that the page was tagged by a bot.
{{hidden-delete-reason}} is no longer used, as it caused unexpected display of wikibullets, and the method used to fill the  span made the contents virtually unusable. The  span is now filled with a clean summary suitable for preloading into the deletion log field.
An additional  span has been provided, which contains only the raw CSD criterion ("A1", "G11", "I5", etc), or "NA" for deletions not based on a defined CSD criteria. This may be useful for java programmers.

For more details of the changes, see the exhaustive discussion at WT:CSD and its subpages. Any comments should be directed there, at WT:CSD#Section break 5. Happy‑melon 11:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki

I tried to install mediawiki on my pc for my website but this is what i get. Thank you! – i123Pie _bio^contribs 20:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This place is for discussions about Wikipedia, not the software that Wikipedia runs on. Please direct your questions to MediaWiki --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect question

My problem is the redirect Six Feet Under. There is an article "Six Feet Under (band)" and there was an article "Six Feet Under" about a TV series. But the term "Six Feet Under" was originally taken by the band so i moved "Six Feet Under" to "Six Feet Under (TV series)". Is there some way how to rewrite all "Six Feet Under" links to "Six Feet Under (TV series)" other than make every single one? Some kind of mass rewrite or something quick?... There are hundreds of these links.....--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 18:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your move by moving Six Feet Under (TV series) back to Six Feet Under. The TV series is better known than the band and it seems irrelevant for Wikipedia naming that the band is older. If you still think it should be moved then you can suggest it at Wikipedia:Requested moves where others can evaluate it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get this aversion and intolerance against metal bands. You reverted my edit without any knowledge of the matter just because the band is a metal band or what. If you red something about the band, you would see that Six Feet Under is the fourth best-selling death metal act and consists band members from the most influental and important death metal bands ever, 3 of the members were in 3 of 6 best selling death metal bands, Six Feet Under is nuber 4.(link). On Youtube are under Six Feet Under 8 of 20 videos about the band even when the other thing is a TV series with 63 episodes. Google gives for "six feet under HBO" about 318 000 and for "six feet under TV series" about 348 000, for "six feet under metal" 555 000, and for "six feet under metal band" about 1 900 000 ! So the band is not only the original user of the term but also worldwide known, important and frequented and at least so frequented as the TV series. The band is also a present theme with new events, albums... The TV series is a several years old matter with no progress anymore. I am not here to promote any unknown metal bands, but this one is very very very big one. So I would be glad if you wouldn't revert this edit just because of your prejudice to heavy metal. I really think that I don't need to talk to you (an adminitrator) about such things as WP:NPOV and WP:POV. And thanks for such a kind answer to my question...Lykantrop ^(Talk) 13:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have nothing against metal bands and I don't see how a disambiguating name is related to WP:NPOV and WP:POV. Category:Six Feet Under is about the TV series. Being among the best known in a small genre is not the same as for a big genre. None of the band albums appear to have reached 100000 sold copies. I see you moved the TV series again without discussion. What is your plan for the name Six Feet Under? A disambiguation page would make sense to me but it sounds like you want it to be about the band which you consider most notable. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links for some tools to help fix links. As you say, there are a lot of them. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You can be sure I have a good faith. Yes I want to make a disambiguation page, although I am sure that the band's page is more frequented on wikipedia than the TV series (but that is just my opinion). I moved it without a discussion because it is obvious that the band is at least as notable as the TV series, so I dont see why should the TV series article keep the name of the band, when it is neither originally the TV series, nor more important. And to say that death metal is a small musical genre is definitely no longer matching for several years and not these days at all. I understand that lots of people have no clue about this music, but on the other hand other people have no clue about TV series. It could be discussed what is more notable, but the disambiguation page should be there at least. It has been told to me that the double redirects will be fixed by a bot within a couple of days. Lykantrop ^(Talk) 23:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Page views of the article on the band are less than 500 per day. By comparison, page views of the page "Six Feet Under" are about 2,000 per day. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If it was only about these 2 articles then continuing with a hatnote on the TV series article at Six Feet Under seems reasonable to me. But a disambiguation page could add more articles (Six Feet Under (soundtrack), Six Feet Under, Vol. 2: Everything Ends, Manorama Six Feet Under, 6 Feet Under (album), Grave (burial)?), so that's OK to me. By the way, both band and TV series are named after the old expression "six feet under" about being buried six feet deep so it seems unimportant which of them adopted the name first, and the TV series article was created first. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my guess was wrong, but I would still keep on making the disambiguation page with "Six feet under (TV series)" and "Six feet under (band)" + other "six feet under things" with "Six feet under"-redirect to the disambiguation page. I never wanted to redirect the "Six Feet Under" to the band of course. But if we want to redirect the "Six Feet Under" to the "Six Feet Under (disambiguation), how can we rewrite all the "Six Feet Under" links to "Six feet under (TV series)???--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 10:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing the links would be relatively trivial for anyone running AutoWikiBrowser - you could ask for help at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The real issue here isn't a predjudice against Death Metal... it's the difference between an Emmy-winning television series that was watched by millions of people weekly and a band that has sales in the high 300 thousand range. It may be the fourth best-selling death metal band of all time, but it is demonstrably less known or significant than the television series, and it is safe to assume that the vast majority of people typing in Six Feet Under will be looking for the television show. To that end, a small disambig link at the top of the show pointing to the band article is ideal from a navigational standpoint. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist URL

I'm trying, without success, to add a favourite or create a shortcut to display my watchlist in the article namespace only, but I can't find a URL for it.. I've tried adding "&namespace=0" to the usual path (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist) without success. I know it's possible to do it from the drop-down box in Special:Watchlist, but I'm trying to cut out a step. Any suggestions please? — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 07:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[1] appears to work. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's just what I was after - thanks. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 07:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding parameters with "&..." only works if there are already parameters in the URL. If the URL does not contain a question mark (?), then you should append "?..." instead. Wikipedia's pages (including special pages) can appear in either form. So this would have worked as well. Bovlb (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

problem with indenting

Why is it that indenting (using ":") does not work next to a table which is aligned left (see the source code)?

Non-indented text

Indented text (but does not appear indented)

Can somebody provide a fix for this, please (other than using ":::::::::::::::::::::::::")? Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't want to put the text into a second column of a larger table. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The dl/dd indenting does exist, but the floating object (in this case, a table with align="left") takes precidence over this. See an example here (all objects on bodyContent shown with a red border on this page.. there is a 100x300 div floating left, so you can see the indents there, but the text being pushed). There isn't really a fix for this, other than something that will remove other features you may want (such as normal indenting being restored when the text passes the vertical height of the image). --Splarka (rant) 07:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW. this again shows an oversight in the definition of floats. What Jakob wants is what the original designers intended. This CSS property of float should have just pushed the text AND the indents, but when CSS float was specified in the standard, this was one of the things that was simply overlooked. The same kinda goes for the WP:BUNCH issue. Because this is "logical" behaviour for humans, there is some hope that this will be fixed in a future CSS specification, but for now and probably long into the future, we are stuck with it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Last edit information on article page

Is it plausible to add 'last edit' information to the article page? Maybe put above the page title. By doing this I don't have to click history page and check whether the page already change since I last checked it. Maybe it could be set in user preference, whether it could be shown or not. Thanks in advance. roscoe_x (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The date of the last edit to a page is already shown in the yellow banner at the very bottom, in amongst the disclaimer text. Is this what you mean? Happy‑melon 22:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

O yes, but I think it would be more helpful if it could be the same format as in history page. Just the first line, something like this(complete with the link):

(cur) (last)  11:36, 25 March 2008 Dweller (Talk | contribs) (118,224 bytes) (→Barnstars format:  tyvm) (undo)

roscoe_x (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

File uploads

Excepting commons, users must be autoconfirmed to uploads files from now on. Thanks. Voice-of-All 06:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Airline

Something is causing the images to be displayed rather large, see Emirates Airline for an example, but I'm not sure what. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be the same "px" problem as above. Remove them from the image size, and I'm betting you'll be fine. --jonny-m t 13:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on both this and the above section, I'm beginning to believe something was changed in Mediawiki so "200pxpx" is no longer interpreted as "200px". --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 13:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed similar behavior on {{Infobox rail}} with regards to the map_size parameter. On the ones I've seen so far, removing the px resolves the issue. Slambo (Speak) 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

THanks to all. Either no image size or dropping the "px" works. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

See T15500. The previous functionality permitting "pxpx" to be interpreted as "px" now no longer works. This mostly happens when a template uses {{{height}}}px or something and people specify height=200px. Just change that to height=200 and it will work as desired. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think may also be related to the size of the original image. Both American Airlines and KLM look fine and have image_size = 200px and 250px. But look at the difference in the original images, Image:American Airlines logo.svg, Image:KLM logo.png and Image:Emirates logo.png. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the AA and KLM logos have "px" in their calls on their articles, it ends up being "pxpx", and thus the software basically voids the size specification and displays the images at their full size. There is no size specified for the Emirates logo at its article, so the size just defaults to whatever the default size is for that template. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I took the size out and not just the px. When it was set earlier to 200px it was showing the image at full size. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Background color between mainspace/non-mainspace

There is an ongoing discussion at Mediawiki talk:Monobook.css#Light blue background to determine if the light blue background currently in use on all non-mainspace pages should be converted to plain white. Any input on this is appreciated. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we have templates similar to the geographic taget template on other language websites?

Take a look at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quincy_%28Californi%C3%AB%29, I noticed that the Portuguese Wikipedia has the same sort of targeted template to indicate towns in the local area of a designated spot. Do we have something similar in the English Wikipedia? Corvus cornix_talk 23:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Issue related to ClickFix

I fixed the ClickFix-related issue with Template:DallasMap, but can't get the road/interstate symbols in the right place. Can someone check this template and its subtemplates and fix? Ral315 (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

tildes in a link

What do I do when there are tildes in a link? It messes up the link, inserting my usertag.

Using the nowiki tag will probably help. Æe tlr Cre ejl 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Need help on searching talk pages

Some months ago I had an exchange with someone on a talk page which included terms like Sulpico Kalaw. I'd like to refer to that discussion, but don't remember the article name.

Following info seen at Help:Search and Help:Namespace, I tried the following URL:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&ns1=1&&fulltext=Search&search=Sulpico

This produced no results, and it should have gotten hits. Can anyone help? Also, either I'm misinterpreting it or the info at Help:Search needs a look. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The search ~~stinks~~ is sub-optimal, have you tried Special:Contributions/Wtmitchell (for whatever wiki and whatever username) ? --Splarka (rant) 07:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It was on a wikipedia article talk page, but I don't recall the article name. I can muddle through without the info I'm trying to retrieve from that exchange, but having the info would be useful. A google search with "site:en.wikipedia.org" searches the wikipedia article namespace. I vaguely recall some past discussion here about using google to search namespaces other than the article namespace but don't recall the details and the "site=whatever" variations I've tried don't work. Oh well;thanks for the response anyhow. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing your URL to use "en.wikipedia.org", I get two relevant results. Also, you can specify the namespace by typing the namespace, a colon, then your search term in the search field. So typing "talk:Sulpico" and activating the search button gives the same results. Graham87 12:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated Help:Searching. The instructions on searching namespaces should be a little easier to follow now. Graham87 12:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link to Wikipedia:Searching at the top of Help:Searching (where it may be deleted in the next update from meta), and to {{Ph:Searching}} which is transcluded in Help:Searching#Wikipedia-specific help (and should remain so after updates from meta). PrimeHunter (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now found that past discussion I was looking for. Cheers. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Search box cursor on main page

Would it be possible to have the blinking cursor automatically appear in the search box when visiting the main page (like on google.com)? Many people use the search box on the main page, and this "feature" would let us start typing right away without having to click on the box first. Are there any reasons why this would be a bad idea?Dwr12 (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google?. Algebraist 10:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If that sounds like a snarky response, it's really not. That section of the FAQ provides JavaScript so that the page focus is automatically in the search box; so any registered editor can make the change (for his/her own use) if desired. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No update

In the article Nazism i always get the second last version, which is vandalism. Cache is empty - refresh is done, but i always see HAHA NO MORE NAZIS KILL EM ALL although there is a newer edit. confused... --91.35.169.101 (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Try purging Wikipedia's cache. I've just done that on the nazism article. Graham87 12:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

single user login & edit counts

I did a single user login for myself. and I swear my total edit count in en.wiki is ~2500 edits less now than it was yesterday. Either that or something is wrong today with wannabe_kate. Kingturtle (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I haven't done SUL yet. I'll try and take note of my edit counts before and after. Carcharoth (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems ok. Maybe there was just a hiccup with wannabe_kat. Kingturtle (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image size at William Wilberforce

I've still got a problem with the image size, which many users appear to think is fixed by the ClickFix thing. No such luck with the article William Wilberforce, I'm afraid. Any help from technically-minded users would be appreciated, as this is up for GA Review this week. Many thanks – Agendum (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks okay to me, try clearing your cache. Corvus cornix_talk 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

All the images look fine to me too. Looks like a good article, albeit one that could really use the always-just-around-the-corner functionality for page numbers in reference tags. Happy‑melon 21:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Image "File links" problem?

This page has an infobox which includes this image. (You can click through from the article to the image page to verify that it reallyis this image.) However, the "File links" list for that page says:

No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file. (Pages on other projects are not counted.)

This doesn't seem to me to be what I expected. I've done the usual purging, editing and saving with no changes, and so on. Is this correct? TimR (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:PURGE of the image and the article seems to have cured the problem. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Hmm. I did a null edit on The Lord of the Rings (1981 radio series) which has relinked the image so it no longer appears orphaned. Not sure how it go unlinked in the first place though. matt br 23:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both. I was pretty sure I did a purge, but maybe I didn't do it correctly. Your help is much appreciated. TimR (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Special:SpecialPages is blank

I currently get a blank page at Special:SpecialPages ("Special pages" in the toolbox). My browser displays the source as:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"></HEAD>
<BODY></BODY></HTML>

Other links like Special:ListUsers are working. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I got a blank page until I refreshed. Working for me now. --CWY2190^T^C 03:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It also works for me now. It was gone a long time. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture issue

Could someone take a look at this article Family Force 5 - One image is showing in the info box. When you click on it, you end up at a different image's information page. Thanks! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's the right image's information page: just the big thumb displayed on the description page hasn't been updated yet. The image you see there is an old version of the image. Give it a few hours and it should fix itself. Nihiltres^{t.l} 03:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Črni Kal Viaduct: discrepancy between WikiMiniAtlas and Geopedia

I've asked this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates already but no one has replied so I'll ask here too.

For the article Črni Kal Viaduct: Why do I get different results when I click the blue globe (at the bottom of the infobox) and when I click "coordinates/GeoHack/Slovenian/Geopedia"? For me the prime method for determining coordinates is by using Geopedia where the objects in Slovenia (like Črni Kal Viaduct) have been marked already.

Another question: Why does GeoHack not show the main map of Geopedia but shows the Wikipedia - SI layer instead? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars format

When I view my userpage today, I see that my usually neat arrangement of Barnies has been blown up, some of them ridiculously. They look awful. No relevant edits to the page. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.12 on Windows XP Professional. Any help gratefully received. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm suffering too, using IE7 on XP Pro. Mind you, it serves me right for using IE and Windows doesn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Removing the "px" from the size parameters appears to fix the issue. {{Click}} was changed recently to use <imagemap>, which may have caused the "px" to become unnecessary. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 11:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, in anticipation of that working. ;-) --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested at the template talk page that they task a bot to go off and fix the puzzling mess lots of editors will be faced by when they next view their userspace. I've seen this problem at any number of user's user or usertalk pages already today. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It happens to me also, when I try to add something to it that is. Any small edit will blow things up. (Mind meal (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

I've responded to Dweller on Template talk:Click, but I'll move the bulk of my comments here for wider scrutiny. Given that {{Click}} doesn't seem to have been updated since February 2 (diff; it's worth noting that User:Ryulong updated the documentation to remove "px" today, though), I don't think it's to blame for the sudden change. Rather, it seems to me that the implementation of the "px" measurement is now a bit screwy throughout the 'pedia, as indicated by User:CambridgeBayWeather's post below.

I've looked through the Bugzilla reports, and it seems that there was a report made yesterday by User:FT2 concerning font scaling and "px" (bugzilla 13494). Given that this bug is listed as still being open, I don't think that the big images can necessarily be blamed on it, but it's certainly something to consider. --jonny-m t 13:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Nice work and good thinking. My bot suggestion might be worth taking onto a wider footing in that case. --Dweller (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Check out [2] - note how all of the images with "pxpx" in their image size are displaying as if there are no sizes specified. Also check out my comment in the section below, which ties into this. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 14:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If it's a permanent change, then we may need a whole slew of bots to help out :) I've gone ahead and filed Bug 13500 in the hope of getting to the bottom of this. Hopefully Bugzilla adheres to WP:BITE, too.... --jonny-m t 14:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. And I've posted to Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Lots_of_images_now_appearing_in_incorrect_size and suggested to the Signpost that they cover this as it's affecting so many images in userspace and mainspace. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Gah. I'm the one who updated the template on 2008-02-02; I even wanted to use a bot to manually correct the syntax before updating, or at least AWB, but was convinced otherwise by someone who found that it wasn't an issue (then). A bot correction run sounds good; that's the easiest solution. Nihiltres^{t.l} 15:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this problem isn't restricted to {{Click}} (contrary to my original comment); it's site-wide, affecting any image with a specified size in "pxpx". --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we basically saying that we need to have as many editors as possible program as many bots as possible to change [[Image:...pxpx...]] to [[Image:...px...]]?? If so, use the regex (\[\[Image:[^\]]+\|\n?\d+)pxpx([^\]]*\]\]) --> $1px$2 - I think it's pretty reliable. If the problem is elsewhere, then so is the solution :D. Happy‑melon 16:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Tim Starling has responded to the Bugzilla report above noting that he changed the code so as not to allow resizing using "pxpx" per Bug 13436, so that confirms the root cause indicated by TMF (the specific revision has a 5:17 UTC timestamp). It seems to me that the best solution is to edit all templates using "px" by default to remove the offending markup. I imagine there will be a new wave of fun stuff to deal with if we do that, of course, but maybe it's time to go ahead and focus on a bot request? --jonny-m t 16:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the best way would be to leave the templates alone and remove the offending "px" from its transclusion calls. Will it ultimately require more edits? Yes, but on the article level, it is more efficient in the long run IMO. (FWIW, I just spent an hour removing "px" from pages that transclude {{OHShield}}, since the template already includes "px".) --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Also consider that either method is likely going to cause some type of mass article editing. Scenario: If "px" is removed from a template's code, then all the articles that correctly just had the number will need to be fixed. If "px" is left in the template, then the articles that incorrectly have "px" need to be fixed. It's pick your poison, I suppose... --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope template click will be fixed, one way or another. Check what happened overnight to my userpage template :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have a fix available. MelonBot ~~is in the process of creating~~ has now created a matrix of pages at User:MelonBot/ClickFix/nnnpx, where nnn is a number between 0 and 999. This enables a simple fix:

Add the code <includeonly>{{#ifexist:User:MelonBot/ClickFix/{{{suspect_parameter}}}|[[Category:{{subst:PAGENAME}} needing ClickFix|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly> to any template which may be affected, replaicng suspect_parameter with the name of the parameter which may be holding duplicate "px" in instances (usually something like imagesize, width, etc).
Create Category:TEMPLATE NAME needing ClickFix, with the following text:
```
__HIDDENCAT__ [[Category:ClickFix maintenance categories]]
```
Once they work their way through the job queue, broken instances will be categorised into this category, where they can be fixed manually, or by bot using suitable regexes.
Once all the instances of a template have been "ClickFixed" - ie checked for duplicate "px" statements, list them at User:MelonBot/ClickFix. Happy‑melon 17:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you believe this works just as well without a butt-load of temporary pages:

{{#ifeq:{{#expr:{{{suspect_parameter}}} }} | Expression error: Unrecognised word "px" | [[Category:TEMPLATE NAME needing ClickFix]] }}

It works by comparing the result of #expr (which expects numerical values only) to the predictable error message produced when #expr encounters the text "px". The #iferror function would also work, but might catch a lot of false positives from parameters that never were valid. Maybe fixing those too wouldn't be a bad idea... hmm, don't mind me. — CharlotteWebb 16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Clever! Now if you'd been around this time yesterday, I wouldn't have my bot blocked or my userspace filled with near-empty pages :D. Happy‑melon 17:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh good lord. — CharlotteWebb 17:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Geez, maybe just use #iferror. --Splarka (rant) 07:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I just hit this on a number of main-page train station articles. I edited them for something unrelated, and the images went haywire. For those of us less wiki-code inclined, is there anything we can/should do to fix this? A quick glance at {{Infobox Station}} shows no references to this pxpx mentioned above. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

See the section below this one; removing the "px" from the "image_size" parameter on that article will fix it. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there are a lot of errors in {{Infobox Station}}, which are backing up at Category:Infobox Station needing ClickFix. Any help would be appreciated. Happy‑melon 18:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the px from the template itself, but am currently second-guessing myself as to whether that was the correct fix. If anyone agrees, please feel free to revert me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea - I see it was quickly reverted. Essentially that just breaks all the currently unbroken instances, and we don't have a way to find them. Happy‑melon 19:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through the maintenance category adjusting as needed. Slambo (Speak) 19:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How widespread do we think this problem is? Happy‑melon 19:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing it hit Featured Article and GA icons on userpages. Seems very widespread. Could you crank up the maxlag on Melonbot? MBisanz ^talk 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The hit and miss looking I'm doing is finding *lots* of infobox templates with image size parameters, but the spot checks I've done so far have not found any more specific instances of these size parameters in use. As long as the parameter is empty, we are OK. But the problem is that each of these templates has many, many articles on them, and any one of which could easily be using the size parameter and hitting the problem. So far we are finding the templates where the image size parameter is in wide use. But the problem ones will be the many, many templates where most do not not use it, but a few do. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've created Wikipedia:ClickFix, with a brief explanation of the problem, and how to fix it. It was made in an awful rush, so feel free to clean it up, expand, rewrite, etc. Do you think it's bad enough to warrant a sitenotice or watchlist-notice? Happy‑melon 20:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I suggest we centralise discussion at Wikipedia talk:ClickFix. Happy‑melon 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

: Here's something to look at for the wiki-code enabled. Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. First airport I found that uses {{Infobox Airport}}, uses the size param, and uses a px on the size param. I did a null edit to it, and.... nothing. With the Station ones null edits were making the images go haywire. The template looks to have the "px". The article looks to have the "px". But I'm not getting the same results. Is something else different about this example that is preventing the problem? Has the problem meta-wiki change been backed out, maybe? - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Strike. Figured it out. Article px is on a different image. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)