Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45

RfC regarding "Ambox generated" maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources

WITHDRAWN
Seeing that discussion has stalled and that no actionable consensus has emerged, I am withdrawing this request. I appreciate everyone's participation and the insight shared. --John Cline (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should maintenance tags that call for the inclusion of additional sources include embedded links that facilitate finding said sources to include? In particular: embedding {{Find sources mainspace}} will add the following line of text:
Find sources: "Archive 41" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR.--John Cline (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Background

I recently requested modifications to embed {{Find sources mainspace}} in 2 standard article maintenance templates whose respective tag asks editors to add sources to the article.[1][2] I then found quite a few others in Template:Citation and verifiability article maintenance templates that could be similarly improved but was asked to seek consensus for the change before any further implementation.[3] This page seemed appropriate for hosting the request in that it concerns several templates identified by {{Twinkle standard installation}}'s boiler instruction.--John Cline (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Please support or oppose the inclusion of embedded search links in maintenance templates whose tag asks editors to add sources to the article.

  • Support - as proposer.--John Cline (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - makes sense with the goal of adding sources --DannyS712 (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Suppose reasonable proposal that makes sense. Don't see any reason not to.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This is both reasonable and useful, but the change discussion should be at the template not here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Why would we not include links to try to make it easier for editors to find sources? DonIago (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This looks to be helpful to editors who may not be aware of all of the resources available for finding reliable sources. - Donald Albury 15:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We already have {{Find sources notice}} and {{Find sources notice 2}} for article talk pages. The space taken up by ambox-type messages should be a concern, and these messages should be as concise as necessary to communicate the issue and how to resolve it. It would be better to link to a project page that can provide a fuller set of links to databases with better help. At the very least, this part should be collapsed. --Bsherr (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - while the extra links are a good addition, the downside is that the template takes ~70% more space on pages, and makes it less consistent with other maintenance tags. If something was to be added to the template, this would probably be the best thing to add, but right now I don't think we should make them any bigger. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't feel comfortable telling users to find sources using Google and JSTOR in every instance of such a template, as though it is those for-profit entities Wikipedia endorses. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support as a net positive. Providing an easy way to remedy problems instead of just plastering a banner saying that there's a problem seems like a good way to get readers to make their first edits. While we have talk page templates to find sources, readers rarely if ever go to talk and so putting this one line of links in mainspace lowers the barrier to entry into editing. On the other hand, I agree with Rhododendrites that privileging Google and JSTOR is not ideal. While I'd prefer a hypothetical alternative to them, until that comes along I'm in favor of this proposal. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 04:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support having Twinkle include these links. This should encourage addition of sources which is a good thing. Give people the tools to fix the problem since many users just tag instead of fixing issues. Legacypac (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These should be either on articles or on talk pages. This is unnecessary duplication. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - people who add sources know where to find sources. People who don't add sources need to read the message box to understand that the article is lacking sources, and the longer and messier the message box the less likely they will read it. Bright☀ 21:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • For clarity, it may be confusing to refer to these as "Twinkle maintenance tags". They are maintenance tags which Twinkle happens to use, but which can be (and are) used by other editors without Twinkle. It might, similarly, be argued as to whether or not this is the right page for the RFC. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed, I would have held the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Template messages, with a note about it left on this page. It's probably too late to move it now, so at the very least a FYI-style note should be left at Wikipedia talk:Template messages (see WP:MULTI), and also at a selection of other pages - the talk page for each template that may be affected (I see that there is already one such at More citations needed), plus WP:VPR and Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Tagging pages for problems too. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

    Thank you for clarifying these important considerations. I've refactored the two occurrences where the tags were erroneously called "Twinkle maintenance tags". I am pinging DannyS712, with apologies attached, to ensure he is aware of this change; being the only respondent who !voted before the text was changed.

    Fortunately, the label was not used in the "neutral statement" (the only part of the RfC transcluded to the centralized boards where they post); no changes were needed for it. I had already posted "pointers", to this discussion, at the talk page of the templates in this discussion's scope. I will increase the placement of these pointers by including other WikiProjects of every tangential interest I can glean (thank you Redrose64 for your advice) .

    If, nevertheless, colleagues see this mitigation; yet call the process afoul: I will adopt their concern as my own, and right the circumstances. Thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

    @John Cline: No apologies needed. I assumed that's what you meant, and I still support it --DannyS712 (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
And JSTOR is a not-for-profit organisation. PamD 13:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Just so editors are aware, this is to do with the templates themselves and not Twinkle. Twinkle will not embed the template in the maintanence tags but the maintanence tags will. A few votes seemed to get it wrong, so I thought I'd put it out there. I've emboldened the RfC agenda to make it clearer. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 15:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Custom tags for non-article namespace

Is there a way to make custom tags (such as I use on User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/twinkleoptions.js) appear in the Twinkle menu even in non-Main namespaces? Such as File.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

G1 in userspace

{{db-g1}} isn't valid in userspace & no longer even acts as a csd in userspace. Could we have it removed from the CSDs on offer when working in userspace? Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cabayi: g2 isn't either. I looked into this a while ago, and saw that, to remove them from the userspace list, you would have to remove them from the general list, and add them back to all of the other namespaces manually... --DannyS712 (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, this wouldn't be too hard or complex, I can open a PR later today. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Amorymeltzer: Thanks. Also, g8 generally doesn't apply to userspace, you may want to include that (or not, since there are rare cases where it does). --DannyS712 (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
That was intended to mean subpages of a nonexistent user page, but was vague so I've reworded it to be clear. There are often plenty of userspace G8s, especially after a G13 spree. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 Done #Latest updates — 2019-01-22 (repo at e9d3808) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Latest updates — 2019-02-20 (repo at e9d3808)

As previously noted, I'd like to get in the habit of marking notable, interesting, or important changes when they go live, both to make folks aware of new features/behaviors and to serve as a catching ground should anything not work properly or new bugs crop up.

This time around nearly all improvements are to the tag module:

~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Antiquated edit summary

I was quite surprised to see this edit summary — it refers to an image that was deleted at WP:IFD, even though Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion was renamed to Wikipedia:Files for deletion more than a decade ago. Is there any way to get "IFD" changed to "FFD" in this script? Nyttend (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The unlinking summary text was written manually by B, not auto-generated by Twinkle. SD0001 (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted {{uw-subst}} in warning screen?

When warning users (in the single-issue warning tab), I see {{uw-subst}} in the tab. It seems to be a deleted template, and as shown by a test on my talk page, it does nothing at all.

I guess it'll have to be removed from the Twinkle panel. Thanks! –eggofreasontalk 20:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, looks like it was deleted 18 months ago and nobody cared, which suggests it wasn't worth keeping around anyway! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
This was  Done btw. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Go to user talk when reverting pending changes

When a page is reverted with the pending changes "Revert changes" button, Twinkle should give a nice link to go to the user's talk page with the page name pre-filled, like it does when "real" rollback is used. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll look into this. I only have reviewer rights on testwiki, so I hope our setup is not too different. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
@Jackmcbarn: Hm, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to here. When I clicked "Reject changes" I seemed to get sent back to the article itself. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
A link from the confirmation page, I mean. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Being hopelessly inexperienced with Pending Changes, I will need step-by-step instructions of every click you are making :) — This, that and the other (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
So you want to see a talk page link even before you have made the revert? That seems like a strange order in which to do things. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I know that's kind of strange, but after the revert is made, there's nowhere to put the talk page link. The other alternative is to make the user's talk page pop open in a new window after the revert, the way that it does when you use Twinkle's own rollback to revert someone. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
@Jackmcbarn: Sorry Jack, I missed your reply. Yes, a popup wouldn't be a bad idea, although I'm hesitant to add another one. I'll see what is possible here and think about the best way to implement it. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Threadcromancy, but I would suggest using popups to direct you quickly to their user talk page. You'll have to copy the page name manually, but it's nonetheless faster than clicking and clicking repeatedly. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 22:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to see the vandal's talk page, but I would like this bot to automatically create a talk page for the vandal, if necessary, and post a notice on the vandal's talk page that they did something offensive. In my recent use of this bot, no notice was posted on the vandal's talk page; apparently because there was no existing talk page for the vandal. - Ac44ck (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Bug report

Twinkle sometimes adds wrong links when warning user. Like this revision. It is supposed to be Rey Danseco not Rey+Danseco.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza☎ 04:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Was this autofilled, or did you copy/paste into the warn menu? I notice that you didn't have the option to automatically open the user's talk, which would suggest to me that it was the latter. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Notifying redirect targets

Would you please consider adding a way to notify the talk page of a redirect's target, when the redirect is being sent to RFD? Here's the problem:

Imagine that I find a redirect ("Alice") that points to an article ("Bob"). I can't figure out why Alice redirects to that article. In reality, this is an appropriate redirect, but I don't know anything about the subject, and I won't bother looking anything up myself WP:BEFORE sending the redirect off for possible deletion. I probably won't even check the article history to see whether information about Alice was blanked by a vandal a few minutes ago. I'll just trust that anyone who reverts the vandalism later will somehow (magically?) think that I might have stumbled across the redirect during that time and decided to send it to RFD while the article happened to not mention Alice.

My rationale for the RFD, of course, will be that Alice is not mentioned in the current version of the article, so readers will be confused. I hope that either we'll delete it, or maybe that someone will be inspired by the threat of deletion to go explain who Alice is in the article.

Twinkle notifies the person who created the redirect (many of whom stopped editing years ago), but nobody else. In many cases, this means that nobody who knows anything about the subject is being invited to the discussion.

Proposal: I think it would be helpful to have Twinkle leave a note about the RFD nomination on the talk page of the target article. So, if you're trying to delete the redirect "Alice", then Twinkle would leave a note at "Talk:Bob" to say that "Alice" is at RFD. This would likely get the attention of people who know whether "Alice" is relevant. I think it could be handled exactly like the tickbox for notifying editors.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious what other folks thinks, but I wanted to note that the template used for the user notification (Template:RFDNote) already has some checks for non-usertalk spaces and could be used just the same. I've tweaked the message slightly, so now on a non-usertalk page it would show something like:

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Test-Article to the article Test-Target. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.

Seems simple to do if desired. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I would think that we would want this to work like merging does, which adds a template to the merge target. Not a talk page message IMO. --Izno (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Seems a sensible suggestion. I think talk page better, as it's not an issue of proposed change to the content of the article. I've put a note on Wikipedia_talk:Redirects_for_discussion#Discussion_about_notification to alert those interested in RfDs to this discussion. PamD 23:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Readers of the target page itself don't necessarily have any interest in the redirect pointing there, and while they may have come to it via a redirect once that isn't true of a redirect tagged for RfD. The talkpage participants would be most likely to have valuable input. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I wouldn't make it a policy requirement (think of all the people who don't use Twinkle), but having such a functionality will be nice. Deryck C. 18:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support either through twinkle or use a bot like RM does. I don't use twinkle (or anything similar) so I wouldn't make it a policy requirement but I would make it strongly encouraged and something that is done by default. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Refactored from Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion:
Oppose I think this is overkill. Is there an example of a problematic RfD discussion that might have ended differently had the target's talk page been notified? UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the idea is more about finding people who might know what they're talking about. I dunno about "problematic", but there are occasional discussions (math, phylogeny, foreign languages) that the regulars aren't necessarily experts at; pagewatchers of the target might be helpful. Redirects only make sense if they end up somewhere, so I think of it sort of like TfM where the target is notified. Placing a template on the target is clearly overkill in this case, though, so a short talkpage note to awaken the watchers seems reasonable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The I think those would be better served by one-off notifications rather than changing the process so that Twinkle notifies every target talk page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Could an option be added to Twinkle to let the user link to a TfD discussion already listed? In this scenario a user has already created a TfD discussion for multiple templates and already listed them all, so what Twinkle will need to do is just add the notice on the template page and on the template's creator talk page, without also listing the template on TfD. This would save a lot of time in situations like these. --Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle TFDs breaking tables

This edit breaks the table. For templates starting with {|, Twinkle's placement of the TFD template makes the template look broken although it isn't. (I assume Zackmann08 is using standard Twinkle here). Can this be fixed? If not, Twinkle shouldn't be used for TFDs. —Kusma (t·c) 12:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I fixed this too. I suspect the templates using that syntax are rare (or rarely being TfD'ed) otherwise this problem could have been detected since. I think adding adding a space in {{Template for discussion}} would fix it.–Ammarpad (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
There's some history on this. Twinkle used to add the newline, but that was intentionally changed four years ago on the basis that the newline itself can be detrimental. About 2.5 years ago someone raised this same issue. I kind of figured it'd be six and one half either way, but that the table situation was less common. I've reopened that issue, and will make a pull request to option the newline if the template begins with `{|`, but is that sufficient? Certainly an improvement. Another thought is that {{Tfd}} could have an option for tables, etc. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
IIRC TW today supports the size parameter in the TFD template; if it's the default or float type, insert the enter by default? --Izno (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Izno, could you clarify what you mean by float? I think you're saying to always insert a newline for the standard or sidebar options and never insert one for inline or tiny, is that right? That is, inline templates are never tables and a newline would never interrupt standard or sidebar templates? It's not hard to check if the template content starts with {| and just insert a newline iff there's a match. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Uh, yes, 'sidebar' option (I think of it as float option because I know it's CSS :). I think it's reasonable to expect that if someone tags the page correctly as needing either a standard or sidebar template, or as a tiny or inline, then yes, inserting the enter in the former would be correct and not inserting the enter in the former would be correct. Now, I guess we probably have a few people who don't pay attention.... but those cases need fixing anyway for the template parameter to be correct. The other way (type=tiny/inline with a block template) isn't a big deal if we get it wrong. Suboptimal display, but not in the realm of the horrific in the other way. --Izno (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I've raised the same issue several times on this page. It arises fairly commonly at TfD, but apparently not commonly enough for the community to readily notice it: there have been TfDs with a long string of !votes of the type "Delete as gibberish" until someone figures out that it only looks like gibberish because of the TfD notice. The issue is not confined to tables though: it affects any kind of wiki markup that works only at the start of a line: headings and bullets are some other examples I can think of. – Uanfala (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, that is really bad. Essentially adding a TFD notice that breaks a template is undistinguishable from vandalism, and TFD should not proceed based on a vandalised version of the template. —Kusma (t·c) 21:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    Kusma or Uanfala, can I take that to mean that Izno's suggestion of basing a newline on the type of styling is the (much) better way to go? I can push this later tonight or early tomorrow morning. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not sure about the technical details, but if you can make sure that for templates that start with formatting that needs to be in a newline (and only for those), Twinkle will add the newline, it should solve the main issue. —Kusma (t·c) 07:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    Let's start there at least. PR opened, I'll sync this when I get a chance in a few hours. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Change is live, let me know if there are any issues. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

RfD for pages that are not redirects

Sometimes it is desirable to nominate a page at Redirects for Discussion that are not actually redirects. This may be preferable to unilaterally creating/reverting to a redirect that is controversial/subject to edit warring. Attempting to nominate pages through Twinkle that were, or should be redirects, are currently rejected by Twinkle. I suggest instead that the user is first warned, then after the user confirms that's what they want to do, a parameter is provided for the user to manually enter the desired target. I assume Twinkle uses {{rfd}} or its own version of it. I did this manually by putting |content=#redirect [[<foo>]] in the template instead of enclosing the whole page in the template brackets. The template seemed happy to process it like that. SpinningSpark 10:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this common? Could you just change the page to redirect and immediately Twinkle it to RFD? Legacypac (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not very common, but this is definitely not the first time I have wanted to do this. Just changing to a redirect does not preserve the current page contents, which is what I was at pains to do to avoid controversy. What is very common, is for a dab page to be constructed outside the RFD template while the RFD is in progress (its common enough to be in the instructions). This is effectively what I did by putting "content=#redirect" in the template. SpinningSpark 12:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-SVG

{{Cleanup-SVG}} has been nominated for merger with {{Cleanup image}}. Will this break a section of Twinkle, or will everything run without a problem? Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 9 if you're able to explain how Twinkle would be affected by the proposed merger. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. I've left a note there: it'd be a simple change since Twinkle just reuses the same code for both. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Latest updates — 2019-03-08 (repo at 79b422a)

Here are some of the more notable changes and new features/behaviors to be aware of. This should serve as a catching ground should anything not work properly or new bugs crop up. This time there were major improvements to the warn menu, some few fixes for csd and xfd, as well as a few behind -the-scenes improvements! (all changes below by User:Amorymeltzer)

  • warn:
    • New feature: Automatically open the warning menu after you've reverted an edit! You can turn this behavior on by enabling the new option in the Revert and rollback section of your twinkle preferences. It will obviously only work if you have the Open user talk page option selected.
    • Lead with the level numbers (1, 2, etc.) in the severity dropdown menu, allowing for easy manipulation with the keyboard
    • Remove the curly braces from the display of the templates, likewise opening the menu to easy access via the keyboard
  • csd: On redirects, show the redirect criteria above the general list, matching behavior for Articles, etc.
  • xfd: Fix TfD nomination breaking templates with initial tables and other formats by adding a newline when using the standard and sidebar TfD/M stylings (See above conversation

~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: Just out of curiosity, where are these changes discussed and approved? Thanks (pls ping) - wolf 21:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
​Here or the github page is fine. We try to stick to things that have at least a modicum of support/consensus or that are clear improvements like bug fixes. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

IP Welcome Templates

FYI
 – Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Descriptive_IP_Welcomes

X3

We should shortly have X3 for portals. Can this be added under the P section please? Legacypac (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Did twinkle ever support X1 or X2? I'm not sure that it did. This is certainly doable if the proposal passes (I see it explicitly demands mentions adding it to twinkle) but it's difficult to add it until it's clear what the template looks like in the background. I can start on the basic stuff, but a lot depends on the structure of the eventual {{db-x3}} template. I suppose it'll be more like PROD or G13? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I've created Template:Db-x3 and the associated Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as mass created Portals. I don't think X1 or X2 were added to twinkle but if it is easy to add, it would be handy. 3500 pages will be tagged. It can go under P section. Legacypac (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Technically the template you made should be speedy deleted as a blatant misrepresentation of established policy (WP:CSD#T2) - you may want to make it clear that it is currently not a valid deletion criterion. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
umm no, there is widespread consensus for X3. We need to create the infrastructure before rolling it out and test it.
The main benefit to adding this to twinkle is the automatic addition to the CSD log, watchlisting the title and auto notification of the page creator. With X1 we tagged as another criteria (housekeeping?) and logged it that way, which is fine as well but then there is no separate cat for the X3 pending deletions. Legacypac (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac: My point was until the discussion officially establishes it as a valid CSD, its misleading --DannyS712 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you looking for a WP:CLOSE? if so, you can close the discussion or anyone can close it - the close will be exactly the same regardless. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac: yes but since its a deletion discussion, doesn't it have to be an admin? I just want to err on the safe side --DannyS712 (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Not a deletion discussion but a new CSD discussion for which there is wide support. It is rare to see such wide support for anything. Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac: Never mind then --DannyS712 (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed file-template consolidation

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 11#Unnecessary file wrappers. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Should Twinkle enabled BOOKPROD in userspace?

I asked about this at WT:BOOKPROD, anyone interested can opine at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion (books)#Should Twinkle enable prod in userspace? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

How can I install/use Twinkle?

Hello, how can I install/use Twinkle? Is there a browser extension or something? Thanks. --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you read WP:Twinkle#Quick info? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@TechnicianGB: To enable Twinkle on your account and receive any future updates automatically, you can simply enable the "Twinkle" gadget in the Gadgets section of your Preferences page. (Don't forget to click "Save" at the bottom of the list of gadgets!) - FlightTime (open channel) 23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your help. I enabled it already! --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Auto-detecting the prefix "Infobox" and changing the Deletion tag display style

When nominating for a merge an infobox, can twinkle auto-detect the prefix "Infobox" and automatically change the "Deletion tag display style" from "standard" to "Sidebar/infobox"? --Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This has been merged; I'll try and update the on-wiki gadgets tomorrow but more likely Wednesday. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle (redux)

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Twinkle (redux)

23:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Old Post: 

Using Twinkle on a mobile device (in desktop mode) has been causing a few problems lately, has anyone had this happen? For one thing, when trying to welcome an IP, the form popped up like normal, yet when I sent it, the Twinkle form went blank. When welcoming User:Guy3Fire (I know now that he is not new, my apologies) where I used the TW button on top, where it didn't want to click.
Thank you for your help in advance!
Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 15:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Addition: Specifically, Twinkle does work great on console devices such as my computer and my Xbox. This is true for my revert at Bellerophon, where I used Microsoft Edge (for Xbox) to warn the user. However, on a mobile device (see above), there is still problems (like here and so I used a template instead of twinkle.

Could someone open up a look into this, while I'm not picky, it would be nice to use Twinkle everywhere. Thank you for looking into this, and finding a solution!

Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 22:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No promises, but what browser/mobile OS/version/etc. ? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

G5 logging

At present G5s are logged without author details. I'd like to log both the author and the alleged sockmaster. Those details would make the log entry useful for examining re-creations. Without them, logging the G5 is pretty pointless. Cabayi (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cabayi: What timing! I opened a PR for this a while ago, it will go live tomorrow. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Now that's an impressive turnaround! Thanks Amorymeltzer. -- Cabayi (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
— regards, Revi 09:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for new "Problem user welcome templates" template

How easy is it to implement new templates? There doesn't seem to be a "Welcome" template for well intentioned editing that's just not good enough, and was reverted on quality grounds. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a warning template to do this either. This is the sort of thing that could ultimately turn into CIR, but it would be better to be able to nip such an editing habit in the bud. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This already exists. When you open Twinkle's welcome menu, scroll down a little bit you'll see the second section with the heading "Problem user welcome templates". There you'll find the list of welcome templates for users with relatively mild problems ranging from test edit to innocuous spam and creating autobiographies. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
No it doesn't, and yes, I know of the problem templates, but none of the templates available cover the scenario I described - where there is nothing inherently wrong with the attempted edit apart from that it's just not good enough - such as poor spelling, grammar and formatting. The info contained within the post may be valid, but the method of presenting it may not. This is the scenario I'm referring to. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
There's a difference between poor spelling and grammar (and perhaps choice of vocabulary, too), which suggests someone who is unlikely to be able to edit here successfully, and poor formatting, which should be possible to overcome through constructive feedback. PamD 07:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not possible to create a template for all possible hypothetical scenarios. If you come across a situation like that, then you should write a personal message for the user. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Maintenance tag grouping

Hi! How easy would it be to modify Twinkle so that maintenance tags added to a page that already has one/some are grouped with the existing one(s) (provided that they're eligible, and "Group inside {{multiple issues}} if possible" is selected, of course)? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This has already been done (along with adding of ability to remove existing tags). See #485. The patch may take some time to be reviewed and deployed, though. SD0001 (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Latest updates — 2019-04-03 (repo at 26305a2)

Here are some of the latest changes and new features and behaviors of which to be aware. There are a lot this time around! Some long-standing feature requests for csd and xfd were added, csd/xfd/protect better interact with modulespace, and a number of items have improved handling or functionality. (changes not otherwise attributed were made by User:Amorymeltzer)

  • Keep vector menu open when clicked, like the "More" menu (User:SD0001, 462)
  • diffs: Reload the rollback/restore link interface when using the revision slider on diff pages (User:Christoph Jauera (WMDE), 407)
  • protect: Don't offer or attempt to tag Modules with protection templates (515)
  • csd:
    • ​​List the details of user-specified CSD parameters in your CSD log (e.g. rationale for G7, user for G6) (441)
    • Place CSD tags on Module /doc subpage, much like TfD nominations (515)
    • Move {{histmerge}} option to the tag module (536)
    • Only show R2 (mainspace) and R4 (filespace) when appropriate (User:DannyS712, 555)
    • Add additional parameters to A5 (link to location), F9 (rationale), and T2 (optional explanation). For F9, either the url or rationale are now required. (546)
    • Use {{db-commons}} instead of {{db-nowcommons}} for F8; the latter was available in the tag module (543)
    • Retain prefilled rationale after mode change (540)
    • For the few of us who use the radioClick option​​​​​​​​​​​, don't multiply submit buttons on multi-input subgroups (552)
  • xfd:
    • ​​​Add the ability to, upon nominating a redirect at RfD, place a notice on the target's talk page. The checkbox is checked by default. (527)
    • Add support for nomination previews for remaining XfD types, namely RfD, CfD, and CfD/S (User:Scimonster, 311 and 521)
    • Place the TfD/TfM tag on the module's /doc subpage per WP:TfD instructions (515)
    • Use the module display format for the TfD/TfM tag if used on a module (515)
    • ​When TfD/TfM-ing an infoinbox, default to the sidebar display format (548)
  • tag:
    • Use text input boxes when applying file tags rather than post-submit alerts for a much better user experience (User:SD0001, 487)
    • Add {{history merge}} tag (previously found under csd) (546)
    • Add {{no plot}} and {{like resume}} (553)
    • Insert new tags after existing CSD or PROD tags (541)
  • talkback: Change default talkback heading to "New message from" + username (User:DannyS712, 529)
  • Relax requirements for xfd and di modules to allow loading on history pages (503)

This section should serve as a catching ground should anything not work properly or new bugs crop up, as well as for any feedback or suggestions. As always, input is welcome at the GitHub repo as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Double signature

When I am placing warning templates and want to leave an additional message in the optional message section I often sign that optional message as a habit, then when I go to preview it only shows one signature, but when I publish it places 2 signatures, (an example can be seen here), can a change be made so that twinkle automaticly removes a duplicate signature if you accidently insert it or it shows the automated signature in the preview. Thanks, SSSB (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Latter seems most appropriate and should be easy to do. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Fully protected templates

Can Twinkle be changed so it will edit the documentation of a fully protected template to add the notice of a TfD? --Gonnym (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not right at all. Twinkle should be changed to make an edit request on the talk page to add the tfd notice. * Pppery * has returned 12:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
That can work also, no issue with that. --Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: See https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle/issues/176 . * Pppery * has returned 15:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It would be really helpful if Twinkle showed the number of edits to revert before the Revert button is clicked. Right now, if I don't notice that the user made multiple edits, I click on Revert, get a warning about reverting multiple edits, and then need to reload the page and pull up the history. It would speed up my workflow a little if there were a message warning me before I click that there will be X reverts.

Actually, now that I'm posting about this, another useful addition would be to add a link (either to the normal display or in the warning popup) to a diff of all of the edits which would be reverted to speed up the whole process even more. Something like "User has made X edits in a row (link to full diff). Are you sure you want to continue?" creffett (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Mobile view

Would It be possible to deploy a lightweight version Twinkle in the mobile version of MediaWiki? I mean I want to use a Twinkle in mobile view. Sincerely, Masum Reza☎ 00:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Feature request for easier warnings

Many years ago, I extracted a chunk of Twinkle code and modified it. It added a link next to the user on both sides of every diff. Clicking on it took me to the user's talk page, where I could then warn them, with the relevant article title automatically supplied.

A recent MediaWiki change broke this. Rather than figure out how to fix it, I thought I would put in a feature request for it to be implemented for everybody. For all those years, I've always found it to be extremely useful, and I'm sure many other users will appreciate it, too.

A slightly less convenient alternative would be an option to always display a "welcome" link in diffs, whether or not the user's talk page exists. Then you could click on it, but issue a warning instead of a welcome. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It is tremendously helpful to be able to warn a user from a diff, with the page title filled in automatically. For example, you restore to a previous version and want to warn each of the participating vandals. Or you see that someone else reverted vandalism and you want to issue a warning that they neglected to do. Without this feature, you have to copy and paste, or type in, the page's title, which is inconvenient, and sometimes leads to errors. Or, worse, people issue a warning without bothering to take the extra time to fill in the relevant page name. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe this pull does what you want? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, a simpler and more elegant solution! Thank you so much! When will it go live? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Sometime in May most like, others should have a chance to review, suggest changes, etc. (such as on the bolding). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

More nuance needed with WP:G8 for redirects to deleted pages

This deletion review essentially arose from the current implementation of Twinkle which is a bit trigger-happy.

A month ago, someone forked an article, and various editors retargeted subtopic redirects, which used to point to the parent article, to the new article. Then it was discovered that the article creator was a sock, so the new article was deleted per WP:G5.

Then Twinkle comes in. The redirects that pointed to the new (and now deleted) article were batch-nominated for WP:G8. They were deleted. This process ended up creating an estimated several hundred redlinks. A better resolution of the issue could've been that, instead of WP:G8, all those redirects should have reverted to their former target.

Here's my feature request for Twinkle: when Twinkle comes across a redirect to a non-existent page, check the page history to see if the redirect had ever pointed to another page that still exists, or had been an article in the past. If it had, then recommend sending to RfD rather than speedying. Will that work? Deryck C. 10:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I have raised this issue on GitHub with the same comments. Deryck C. 12:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
And on wikitech-ambassadors. Apologies for not replying earlier, but having read everything, does not the issue stem from people not properly checking before tagging or deleting broken redirects? In particular, ...Twinkle doesn't check page history when it nominates redirects for WP:G8 deletion, and any mistakes it makes... is really the fault of the taggers in question, no? I agree that there's a real issue where useful redirects with prior or other targets get deleted when the current target is deleted, but again, isn't that on the deleting sysop for not doing their due diligence before deleting? Deleting redirects can be turned off in Twinkle's preferences or unchecked when using the form.
As to your suggestion, that'd be pretty unwieldy I think. Checking an unknown number of prior revisions of each redirect for a page that may or may not exist would be a lot of additional API calls, potentially exponentially so, and could take quite some time to process. There is some work at the moment by User:SD0001 regarding batch-deletion of subpages that could be relevant. Basically, it would show a list of subpages to be deleted before being clicked. I suppose one option would be to, rather than the above, do a system like that for redirects. I think we'd have to see a strong consensus before doing that, though, since it takes up a lot of space and this is a popular feature. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Block

Block tab still blocks if someone else blocked after the interface pops up; ideally it checks again if a block is in place before actually proceeding. -- Lofty abyss 23:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Lofty abyss: Issue added to github - https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle/issues/602 --DannyS712 (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Lofty abyss 09:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposing to merge undefined into undefined

Note the page history of Talk:Undefined:

Proposing to merge undefined into undefined (TW)

When placing a merge tag and starting a talk-page discussion, please ensure that the parameter specifying the page to merge with is specified.

This may have been previously reported as it's a longstanding issue, but thought I'd report it in case this has fallen thru the cracks. A link to the bug report on GitHub would be appreciated. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Has this happened recently? I was made aware of it March 10th, and thought I'd fixed it that very same day. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
No, March 10 seems to have been the last time, from the page history at Talk:Undefined. It's just that today is the day that I noticed this (one that happened in December 2018 had yet to be fixed). Thanks for fixing it so promptly! I'll leave a note at Talk:Undefined to let others know it's been resolved. wbm1058 (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Db-unfree listed at RfD

The redirect Template:Db-unfree to Template:Db-f9 is currently listed at Redirects for discussion. If this template is used for Twinkle's F9 speedy deletion feature, this should be fixed until the discussion is over. Thanks! Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It was indeed noted but thanks! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I have closed the discussion and replaced this title with a deprecation notice. See Template:Db-unfree. Deryck C. 14:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

AfD question

Is there an option in twinkle to put more than one article to one AfD? Govvy (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, no. Someday maybe, it's certainly on the to-do list! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Batch undelete problem

I am running into a problem with Batch Undelete. I get this sort of result:

Undeleting pages: Done (3/15 actions completed successfully)
Undeleting page Portal:Vienna/Opentask: completed (Portal:Vienna/Opentask)
Undeleting page Portal:Vienna/Selected biography: completed (Portal:Vienna/Selected biography)
Undeleting page Portal:Vienna/Selected biography/1: [XK8JFQpAAEgAAH7VN8gAAAAY] Caught exception of type Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError
Undeleting page Portal:Vienna/Selected biography/2: completed (Portal:Vienna/Selected biography/2)
Undeleting page Portal:Vienna/Selected biography/3: [XK8JFQpAEDcAAJ1ocK8AAACI] Caught exception of type Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError
Undeleting page Portal:Vienna/Selected biography/4: [XK8JFQpAEDQAAEykIBcAAABY] Caught exception of type Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError
Undeleting page Portal:Vienna/Selected picture: [XK8JFQpAIDoAAJkm5r0AAACR] Caught exception of type Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError
Undeleting page Portal:Vienna/Selected picture/1: [XK8JFQpAEMIAACVrIRwAAAAF] Caught exception of type Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError
Undeleting page Portal:Vienna/Selected picture/2: [XK8JFQpAEMIAACVrIRsAAAAT] Caught exception of type Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError
Undeleting page Portal:Vienna/Selected picture/3: [XK8JFQpAAEkAAH572TsAAABQ] Caught exception of type Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError
Undeleting page Portal:Vienna/Selected picture/4: [XK8JFQpAIDYAABypej4AAAAH] Caught exception of type Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError
Undeleting page Portal:Vienna/Selected picture/5: [XK8JFQpAIDQAAKdREK4AAADG] Caught exception of type Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError
Undeleting page Portal:Vienna/Selected picture/6: [XK8JFQpAMEIAACELKFwAAAAT] Caught exception of type Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError
Undeleting page Portal:Vienna/Selected picture/7: [XK8JFQpAIDwAAB6JstIAAABQ] Caught exception of type Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError
Undeleting page Portal:Vienna/Topics: [XK8JFQpAEMIAACVrISMAAAAX] Caught exception of type Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError

Problem recurs when new Und-batch attempted on the remainder of the list. Eventually all are undeleted, but by random sub-batches.

Can someone explain the error message? Does anyone know what is causing this? Is there a workaround? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC) (please ping with reply)

Not sure, but wasn't something similar happening with deletion or moving a while ago? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
(mostly) alleviated per below ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, will report back if it happens again, but I don't undelete batches very often... Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Latest updates — 2019-05-08 (repo at 53b6bf4)

Here are some of the latest changes and new features and behaviors made to Twinkle. Major improvements to WP:PROD behavior, a new "Restore this revision" link on old revisions, plus now you can delsort AfD's upon nomination! Plus a number of bug fixes as well as the usual improved handling and functionality. (changes not otherwise attributed were made by User:Amorymeltzer)

  • Add [restore this revision] link when viewing old revisions, just like on diffs (562)
  • xfd:
  • prod:
    • Add {{old prod}} to talkpage upon on nomination (567)
    • Check for old PROD templates on talkpage or an existing AfD, abort if found (566)
    • Enable BOOKPROD on userspace books in appropriate category (559)
    • Don't insert a stray comma when endorsing a PROD (585)
  • prod/csd: don't log notifications if the notification failed (e.g. the user talk page was protected) (578, User:SD0001)
  • csd:
    • Wikilink numerous extra parameters in the CSD log, such as users, XfDs, files, etc. (584)
    • Add link to log when logging files, as deleted files that existed on commons would still appear bluelinked (535)
    • Don't allow blank F9 logging (584)
    • Add plain G8 to category list (603, User:DannyS712)
  • protect:
    • When requesting protection at WP:RfPP, prompt the user to ask the protecting admin (297 & 586, User:MusikAnimal)
    • Disable pending changes dropdown on ineligible namespaces (anything other than main or project) (560)
    • Remove autoconfirmed from dropdowns when inappropriate (move protection and mainspace creation) (451)
  • batchdelete: Fix longstanding bug where the image-delinker didn't work​ (594, User:SD0001)
  • batchundelete:
    • Mostly alleviate/avoid database errors when restoring large pages​​ (613)
    • Add option to restore talk pages as well (601, User:SD0001)
    • Add red color and confirmation for create-protected pages (as is done in batchdelete) (613)
  • tag:
  • welcome: Enable on every user-related page (547)
  • warn: Show signature in preview​ (587)
  • arv: Remove extra blank line for UAA reports (607, User:Pppery)
  • Add <nowiki> tags to twinkle preference pages (612, User:DannyS712)

This section should serve as a catching ground should anything not work properly or if any new bugs crop up, as well as for any feedback or suggestions. As always, input is welcome at the GitHub repo as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: It looks like the pending changes dropdown has been disabled in mainspace. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Ugh, thanks. Today's software update removed a variable that I started depending on just the other day, so terrible timing. I've reverted the change, it should be fixed in the next few minutes. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle shouldn't follow redirects when delivering warnings

We noticed today that Twinkle is willing to follow redirects from the target user's talk page when issuing warnings and block messages. For example, this block resulted in this warning, because the vandal had set their talk page to redirect to User:DoRD. Twinkle probably shouldn't follow any redirects at all when issuing warnings or delivering block messages, but it definitely shouldn't be doing so cross-namespace. ST47 (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Surely this is a rarity, and the more likely case is for alternate or bot accounts? I could imagine block templates being an exception, but I'd think most cases of usertalk redirects would be intentional. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content / whitewashing

It would be useful to have a warning against whitewashing behaviour. None of the options really work for that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

In my experience the "unexplained delete" option works for a deletion of sourced content, as in my experience, it's usually done without a (valid) explanation. POV may also be an option. DonIago (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Whitewashing is often done with explanations, so 'unexplained delete' doesn't really apply. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
That's why I also mentioned POV. DonIago (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't open talk page on vandalism until after revert?

A couple times now, I've hit the rollback (vandalism) button, the talk page has immediately popped up, I've posted a warning...then flipped back to the vandalized page and seen that someone else already reverted it. It's not a huge problem, just a little confusing to people when they see I posted a warning and didn't revert. I don't have this issue with the normal rollbacks (or at least haven't hit it yet). Would it be possible to reorder the actions here so that the talk page only opens after a successful revert? creffett (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I actually like the way it works now, but it can cause redundant warnings. That's usually rare, though, as many vandalism reverters don't issue warnings, but as a Twinkle user, I generally do. Alternatively, an option to warn anyway might be useful too, rather than only on successful reverts. - BilCat (talk) 05:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle removing edit

I just noticed this edit of mine done with Twinkle. As you can see it removed previous edit which placed block note (a section with heading itself). Edit like that can be easily misunderstood and I am not sure why this happened. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

What likely happened is that when you went to notify the user, Oshwah's edit took place in the instant between the time it took the API to load the page content and then modify it. It should be rare, but it's a long-standing issue. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Amorymeltzer, err... are you sure? That is what an edit conflict is, right? I thought twinkle had a mechanism for dealing with edit conflicts? SD0001 (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Lord knows I may be wrong — looking at the brief description again I may not be exactly right — but I had thought `append` was treated somewhat differently? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks like `append` doesn't involve a `load` at all, or at least whenever fnCanUseMwUserToken('edit') is true - I'm not sure when all that's gonna be the case. It directly uses the API's appendtext parameter. So there's no possibility of an edit conflict. That would suggest this was a server-side error. SD0001 (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Feature Request: April Fools' AfD button

During April Fools' Day, I found it tedious to make a joke AfD nom, as it had to be done manually. I would like to request an option to use Twinkle to make an AfD that doesn't add a notice to the page in question. Thanks! Jeb3Talk at me here 15:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jebcubed: A custom module should do the trick - I'll work on something between now and April --DannyS712 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Just leave it as tedious as possible. Less fake nominations is better. --Gonnym (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym:, I feel like the tediousness of creating an April Fools' AfD detracts from the fun of April 1st. It would, in my opinion, make April Fools' a bit more fun if Twinkle could be used to create AfD noms specifically for April Fools. Jeb3Talk at me here 17:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Annually WP:FOOLS isn't followed strictly enough and the last thing we need is to make the repeated abuse easier. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
You (or Danny) are welcome to create something, but as far as the core Twinkle suite is concerned, that's a solid no Declined. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Creating fake nominations shouldn't be easy, because cleaning them up is a PITA. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Editors welcome to tweak post-CSD notices

As mentioned last month at AN, I've been (slowly) working on adding to Twinkle the ability for sysops to automatically notify users upon CSD deletion. I've created the corresponding templates, and wanted to make folks aware of them so it's not just me writing them. You can read more at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Edits welcome to new post-CSD notices, but the tl;dr is that I'd appreciate any changes anyone sees fit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Double signuture

When I am placing talk back templates and want to leave an additional message in the optional message section I often sign that optional message as a habit, but when I publish it places 2 signatures, (an example can be seen here), can a change be made so that twinkle automaticly removes a duplicate signature if you accidently insert (similar to Reply link). Thanks, SSSB (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Previously Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_41#Double_signature ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Amorymeltzer, yes, that was me about user warning template. Could you do the same for Talkback. Thanks, SSSB (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's on my todo list. FWIW the tooltip when you hover over the question mark says it will add a signature for you, so that might be helpful as a reminder! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Bug for CSD C1 (Empty Categories)

Hi,

I tag a lot of empty categories from the Database list and even though the "Notify creator if possible" box is checked, there is rarely a deletion notice put on the category creator's talk page. I don't have this problem with any other CSD criteria, just C1. One editor was particularly annoyed because an empty category was deleted after 7 days and they did not receive a notice. The category ended up being recreated (as it was no longer empty) but I said I'd follow up and try to find out what the glitch was with CSD C1 tagging with Twinkle. Any ideas? Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Liz, your Twinkle setting takes precedent over the checkbox at the CSD dialogue. To rectify the issue you have to allow the notification via the settings page. You can do so by accessing Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and then look for "Notify page creator only when tagging with these criteria:" section and check the box for "C1" and/or any other you like. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Yup! Liz, if you mouse over the question mark after the "Notify creator if possible" option, you'll see that it specifies that you must have the box checked AND the respective criterion selected in your Twinkle preferences. You haven't customized this from the default, which does not include C1. Checking that box as Ammarpad suggested should do the trick. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Just seeing this message now, Amorymeltzer. I thought notification was the normal behavior for CSD tagging EXCEPT for C1 where I have this notify box ticked but it never posts a message to the category creator. Because there are a small group of editors who create quite a lot of categories, I sometimes don't want to bombard their talk pages with a great deal of CSD tags but I would prefer that individual editors who have created a single category would get notified. In fact, there was a complaint on ANI about me last month because I placed a CSD C1 tag on an empty category and deleted the categoory 7 days later and the creator was never notified and he was upset. Do you know why Twinkle has this one glitch? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
(I moved the above comment from AN ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC))
@Liz: When you go to WP:TW/PREF and scroll to "Notify page creator when tagging with these criteria" is the box for C1 checked? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Amorymeltzer and Ammarpad. I see about changing this preference. Your knowledge is much appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I followed your instructions. I don't think I had looked at Twinkle preferences since I set it up years ago. For some reason, I had all of the CSD criteria checked EXCEPT for C1 so.....it was not a bug, it was my fault! Back then, I must have been thinking that there are a few editors who take care of a lot of Wanted Category creations and I didn't want to plaster their talk page with CSD messages when a slew of similar categories are tagged. So, I don't know if I UNCHECK the notify box on Twinkle notice, if my Preferences will rule over the immediate tagging choices? I had not remembered that there are such a great number of variables on the Twinkle Preferences. Thanks again for helping me out. Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Removing the orphan template

I know that it's more traditional for me to come ask for "just one more" template in Twinkle, but today I'm asking that you please remove one:

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 29#Idea - bot to tag orphans, adding the {{orphan}} tag does not seem to be a valuable use of editors' time (either the time of the editor who is adding the template or the time of the multiple editors who review that edit), and its addition should therefore be permitted but gently discouraged. Having any template in Twinkle tends to encourage its use, so I request that you take it out of Twinkle.

Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sympathetic to this, but I'm not seeing an actionable consensus there. There's also the older Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_138#Orphans, which might help the argument but muddies the water a bit with its focus on a timeline. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No A options in draft space?

I'd like to tag Draft:SVT Barn as an A10, substantially the same content as SVT Barnkanalen, but while twinkle gives me all the G options, it gives me none of the A options. Am I missing something, or is it simply that twinkle hasn't been updated to display the A options in draft space. I've run across the situation of number of times but finally decided to document it.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed you are missing something. Hint: read WP:CSD. SD0001 (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Template:Db-catempty-notice

A notice on this template states that changes made to it should be posted on this page so I am cross-posting from Template talk:Db-notice (where Template talk:Db-catempty-notice redirects to).

The wording on this template needs to be slightly changed because the language has needlessly upset some editors, even ones who have been editing for years. The current process with empty categories is that editors/admins who come across ones that do not fall into a few special categories (disambiguation, redirects, CfD discussion, etc.) are tagged and then they appear in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. If they do not remain empty, they are removed from this category. If they remain empty for 7 days, they are supposed to be moved to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories (which the bot doesn't always do) and then deleted. However, the notice Twinkle places on the category creator's talk page states in part:

A tag has been placed on [[:{{{1}}}]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

The way some editors have read this is that: a) the category has been empty for 7 days then b) the empty category is tagged and c) it will be deleted on sight. But this is backwards as the category is first tagged, then sits for 7 days. So, they panic, thinking that their category will be immediately deleted. So, I propose that wording of the notice goes something like this:

A tag has been placed on [[:{{{1}}}]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion, it will be deleted.

This reflects the nature of CSD C1 which is tagging, 7 days, still empty? Then delete. Does this meet with general approval? Liz Read! Talk! 16:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Batch Deletion Question

I have another Twinkle question. I'm considering utilizing batch deletion because I have an old computer that is rather slow when I'm moving from tab to tab but Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#batchdelete doesn't provide much help. My question is in the section in the pop-up that appears states "Pages to delete" with Select All or Deselect All as the alternatives. What I would think I'd see is a list of open tabs and then checkboxes so I could select the open pages to delete.

But there is no list of pages to select from. Soooo, would Select All delete every page that I have open in a tab in this window? Or every page that I have open in all my windows? I'm not going to Select All when I don't know what I'm selecting. As the module states, batch deletion could cause massive disruption. I'm hoping because I see D-batch used frequently among admins that someone can answer my question. And if it involves going back into my Twinkle preferences again, I will feel rightly ashamed. Any help? Thanks in advance. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC) "

Good Lord. Batchdelete is for zapping all pages that are linked from the page you're using the script from. It may be a normal page or a category or a Special:PrefixIndex page. Pages you're about to delete will be listed in the 'Pages to delete' section, so don't worry. If there are no pages in the list, that means you're using it on page which doesn't link to any other page. SD0001 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's not the way it appeared to be used and it would be helpful if this kind of detailed information was on the Twinkle page. It gave no instruction at all.
The way I've seen it used (at least I think it was batch delete) was looking at the deletion log and seeing admins deleting dozens of different pages or files at the exact same minute. I had assumed it was through batch delete. But maybe they just have much faster fingers and computers than mine! Liz Read! Talk! 16:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
No they must have been using batchdelete. What people usually do is to create a user subpage with a list of pages needing deletion (with wikilinks), and then use the script from that page. Example: User:Tavix/deletebox. SD0001 (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle in ptwiki

Hello, I would like to use Twinkle on Wikipedia in Portuguese, necessarily only the reversion module. What is the process for me to be able to use it? Marcoasxd (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 Twinkle updates, features, and behaviors (2019-06-05 @c0e100a)

The latest update brings a number of major improvements to the tagging module from User:SD0001, such the ability to remove tags from articles, a quick filtering system, and a status displaying how many tags you are adding and removing. Also included are a new system for sysops to notify users when speedy deleting their pages, hiding of rollback/revert/etc. links for pages you can't edit, easier selection of warning templates, and batch-deletion of subpages. Plus a number of bug fixes as well as the usual improved handling and functionality. Changes not otherwise attributed were made by User:Amorymeltzer.

  • tag: (All listed changes to tag module by User:SD0001)
    • Add ability to untag and remove templates from articles (485)
    • Group existing tags into {{multiple issues}} when adding tags (485)
    • Add quick filtering functionality for article tags (647)
    • Add status text next to Submit button (e.g., Adding 1 tag; Removing 2 tags) (648)
    • Place new tags under {{AfDM}} (642)
    • Fix long-standing bug where selected custom tags would be unselected if changing between alphabetical and categorical display of tags (653)
  • csd: New option for sysops to notify creator upon deletion, check out your Twinkle preferences to customize when users are notified. Defaults are the same as tagging notifications. (563)​
  • revert/rollback:
    • Only add links if the user has necessary perms to edit the page (632)​
      • Reverted for contributions, see below
    • Don't create rollback links if the page only has a single revision (630)
    • Fix bug if user selected "Do not show page content below diffs" in their preferences (628)
  • warn:
  • prod:
    • Wait three days before issuing BLPPROD alert if not in BLP cat (610)​
    • Detect prior XfDs using templates on talk page rather than just existence of AfD discussion, allows checking for prior MfD and FfD rather than just AfD (637)
  • xfd:
    • Automatically select "Wrap deletion tag with " if page carries {{subst only}} (639, User:SD0001)
    • Fix removal of already-present AfD tags (650)
  • batchdelete: Allow deletion of subpages (581, User:SD0001)​
  • arv: Remove tab from user's own pages (622, User:DannyS712)

This section should serve as a catching ground should anything not work properly or if any new bugs crop up, as well as for any feedback or suggestions. As always, input is welcome at the GitHub repo as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Technical Morebits changes

Also, for the more technical folks, there have been a number of changes to the Morebits.js library, briefly noted below:

  • Rename lookupCreator to lookupCreation, also include timestamp (User:Amorymeltzer)
  • Add getUnchecked, pair of getChecked (User:SD0001)
  • Add Morebits.pageNameRegex to create first-letter-case-insensitive regex (User:SD0001)
  • Allow post processing function in batchOperation (User:SD0001)
  • Trigger click event in checkboxShiftClickSupport (User:SD0001)
  • Remove Morebits.wikipedia and Morebits.bytes (User:SD0001)

Additionally, the Twinkle gadget now loads jquery.chosen. Siddhartha Ghai and DannyS712 (and Abelmoschus Esculentus fwiw), you may want to change any instances of lookupCreator with lookupCreation, although the former should continue to work for the time being. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Nice work, Amorymeltzer and SD0001! Searchable tags and warnings is something I've wanted for a long time - I spend so much time peering through twinkle menus looking for the right tag or warning.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The new changes sound great! Was it deliberate to make talk page links on diffs bold, as reported at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Talk_pages_bolded_in_diff_view, or is this a bug? the wub "?!" 19:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, replied there! Intentional, but perhaps undesired. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the bold is good for indicating that the link has an enhanced purpose. But whether it ultimately ends up bold or not, thank you very much for implementing the extremely useful functionality. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there some way I can shut off the bolding? It's getting in the way of my work. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Add a.mw-usertoollinks-talk { font-weight: normal !important; } to your common.css. Though I too disagree with this bolding and it should probably be reverted for all users. SD0001 (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I will do that, exactly what I need. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Don't sweat it, I'll take care of it in a moment. There was some initial feedback it was undesired so I was waiting to see if there was any more discussion, but consensus seems firmly against the bolding. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Should be gone (also, wow, sorry, just now realizing your timestamp was nine hours ago...) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Checking ability to edit each page: Too many values supplied for parameter "titles". The limit is 50

Hi

Since the changes, twinkle rollback links no longer load for me on contribution pages. They do load on diff pages. Checking the console gives me the error above, which seems to implicate some "Morebits" code if I try to track it down. That error does not appear on diff pages, where the rollback links load properly. More than that I don't know what to tell you, but if you need any more info please ask. I did try disabling all other scripts, but the issue persists even then. Thanks. -- Begoon 02:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Ah - adding - if I display only 50 contribs per page then the links do appear, and the error goes away - more contributions per page than that then they don't appear. Perhaps that helps to narrow it down? -- Begoon 02:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Further experiments show that, as the error message I suppose suggests, it's actually the number of different page titles in the displayed list that governs whether I get this error and not the selected number of contributions per page. For instance, if the list of 100 contributions per page contains 50 or less actually different page titles (i.e. there are multiple edits to the same page(s)) it will display with the rollback links, without error. If any contribution listing page, of whatever length, contains over 50 different page titles it will generate the console error and no twinkle rollback links. I hope that makes sense... -- Begoon 06:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yup, that's 100% right Begoon. The latest update included a change where Twinkle checks if you can actually edit the page before loading rollback/revert links. The API that allows that check is limited to 50 pages for non-sysop users, which is why you're seeing that. I've reverted that change for now, sorry for the annoyance. Some discussion on github as well.​ ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    No problem. Thanks for the quick response, and for all the great work you do on this indispensable tool. Cheers. -- Begoon 09:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

User warning dialog dropdown selector

The user warning dropdown is virtually unusable now. Items are listed by the esoteric template names making it difficult to find the appropriate warning. The previous formatting has been deeply ingrained for years and was working without issue, as far as I know. What is the case for making these specific changes?- MrX 🖋 12:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

MrX, do you not see the search box in the warning dropdown, which makes the templates easier to find? Items were listed by the "esoteric" template names all the way till March of this year, when the {{uw- prefixes were removed to try make the menu more keyboard-accessible. However, now with the addition of the search box, there is no longer a case for removing the deeply-ingrained-for-years {{uw- prefix, so they have been reinstated. SD0001 (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, SD0001 I see the search box. That may make templates easier to find for people who like to type into search boxes, but for editors who frequently use the warning function and who want to scroll to a warning's familiar location, it makes it considerably more difficult. If the template names are needed, put them behind the descriptive text in light gray so that they don't confuse the humans. Were these change discussed with the community at all? If I'm searching a list, the type of warning us what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for a description, or the name of a template combined with {{uw-}} - MrX 🖋 14:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with MrX. I've been doing countervandalism for years and I don't like changes to the interface that make it harder for me to navigate the tool in the manner in to which I am used. This is why this community keeps killing Flow and other bad ideas. Please give me an option to make the drop-down like it was. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I see that the issue is that the density of items in the new select interface is much lesser, thus requiring more scrolling to get to the templates. This also seems to be causing the {{uw- part to stand out more than it used to in classic menu. I'll provide a preferences option to opt out of the new new interface. SD0001 (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Density could also be achieved with some simple CSS inre padding. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.- MrX 🖋 15:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Having read through this (thanks for the link Amory), I agree that the reduction of density is an issue. I'd be grateful for the option to disable this in Twinkle settings I had a look for it just now, but didn't see it - if it's already there, could you point me at it? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Not yet, but soon! SD0001 was fast. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@MrX, Chris troutman, and Girth Summit: There should now be an opt-out user preference in your twinkle preferences, look for Use the non-searchable classic select menu. Credit to SD0001 for the quick code. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but was the template code listed before or am I just noticing it now? - MrX 🖋 19:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
The full template names have been there for over a decade. As mentioned above, the uw- portion was removed just a few months ago to try and solve something that the new menu does much more elegantly. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping Amory, and to SD0001 for making the change so quickly. It looks like the density issue has been addressed in the default view now however: I'm able to see the same number of options as I was in the past, which was my principal annoyance, so I'm happy with the new look now. Cheers! GirthSummit (blether) 08:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Some inaccurate field descriptions in user warning menu

A few of the warning options have an incorrect prompt for the extra information field (the field below the template name where you usually put the name of the article you're warning about, not sure what the correct name for the field is). I haven't checked thoroughly, but the autobiography template prompts for "Optional username that was reported (without User:)" instead of the article name (in fact, it looks like all of the single-issue notices have that problem), and the bad username template prompts for "Linked page" instead of a description of the problems with the username. creffett (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks — reported on github, and I made a potential fix live, should go into action in 5-10 minutes. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you! creffett (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Long previews overlap and block "Submit" button

Hello, I hope it's OK to post some additional bug feedback here: when previewing long user warnings (for example uw-coi or other long messages), the "Preview" display of such long messages overlaps and blocks the "Submit" button at the bottom of the window. More precisely, the underlying window stays small and doesn't extend its size to accomodate longer messages in the preview field. Currently, the only way to submit warnings with a long message text is to avoid pressing the "Preview" button at all. GermanJoe (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

#665. A known bug. Until a fix is deployed, please resize the dialog by dragging the bottom-right corner, that will make the submit appear. SD0001 (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. GermanJoe (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
checkY Fixed a few days ago. SD0001 (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It still doesn't work for some browsers. For example, on a PC: Internet Explorer and Edge; on an iPad: Safari and Chrome. For all of these, the dialog can't be resized, so all one can do is close it and start over. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mandarax: The ability to resize was removed intentionally to paper over the bug. But this doesn't seem to have worked for IE/Edge. I have a better long-term solution for this ready but I haven't gotten to testing it yet. SD0001 (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for working on it. I appreciate the effort to fix such a minor issue which doesn't even affect everybody. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

{{Dead end}} has disappeared

It seems not to be included, but was previously. There's {{underlinked}}, but the documentation for that specifically says Articles with no internal links at all can instead be tagged with "dead end". Please reinstate this in the Twinkle options. Thanks. PamD 10:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@PamD: It was intentionally removed due to low usage. But that was before the search tool was added, so we could consider adding back templates that were removed due to low usage as there is no longer a need to keep the interface clutter-free. But in this case, I would simply suggest merging this one (which has just 5 articlespace transclusions, some of which are wrong) to {{Underlinked}}, as I don't see the need for two separate templates. The trivial task of adding one link should not necessitate changing {{dead end}} to {{underlinked}}. SD0001 (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@SD0001: The fact that there are just 5 transclusions, all from this month, suggests that it is well used and has a batch of wikignomes, or even just one line enthusiast, who monitor the category and find at least one link to add to each article Compare to the 11k articles in the "underlinked" category. This template is useful and used, please reinstate it. Thanks. PamD 16:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Db-f8

This template has been redirected per this discussion. Thank you! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! I'll probably be pinging some folks in the next day or two to follow-up on my comments there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Db-f8 error

The template is broken now. It is wrongly adding the parameter filename=FOO instead of 1=FOO. here is an example please fix this.--DBigXrayᗙ 08:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It was redirected above, but the named parameter in {{db-f8}} didn't exist in {{Now Commons}}. I've added it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

G8 restriction

See this edit. May be relevant to the current GUI. --Izno (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

New language in G8 and G14 added. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

If you hover over "XFD" link in the TW menu, you will see "Start a deletion discussion". However, "XFD" link can also be used to start other types of discussions. For example, if CfD is chosen as the discussion venue, then "Choose type of action wanted" allows choosing Deletion, Merge, Renaming, Split, and "Convert into article" types. Should the tooltip be amended? —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

There was a brief discussion on this change on the github repo, but it was changed to "deletion discussion" from "deletion" precisely to be more inclusive of these discussions. If you want to get technical, per WP:XFD, venues like RfD or TfM are all "deletion discussions" even if they are not "discussions" about "deletion." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

G7 Failure

Trying to delete this page and told

Building deletion summary: Unable to generate summary from deletion template
Asking for reason: you didn't give one. I don't know... what with admins and their apathetic antics... I give up...

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Uw-myblock moved to Template:Uw-socialmediablock

I recently closed a move request with consensus to move Template:Uw-myblock to Template:Uw-socialmediablock. There's a banner in the template's documentation that says to notify people here, so here you go. KSFT (t|c) 18:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

694. SD0001 (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle on Talk pages

I have long used "Tag" on articles to access TWINKLE, but I do not see "Tag" on any talkpages. Perhaps there is somewhere to set an option on TWINKLE for having talkpage "Tag", but I have not found it. Someone, please help me with that.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Messing up AfDs

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Can someone fix the mess Twinkle has made to my Ken Power AfD?. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

CSD F5 files

Hi. This is not urgent, but it would be nice:

When nominating a file as CSD:F5 ({{di-orphaned fair use}}) a parameter is accepted for "replacement". The template (and Twinkle) will accept filenames without the prefix, eg: Example.jpg, and links just fine (because it uses: :{{#ifexist:File:{{{replacement}}}|File:}}{{{replacement}}}) - however, when Twinkle makes the entry in your CSD log it omits the (unsupplied) File: prefix, leaving all your "replacement" entries in the log as redlinks. It's easily fixable with a periodic find/replace, like [4], but it would be nice if Twinkle could automagically add missing File: prefixes when making the CSD log entry. Thanks -- Begoon 00:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

695. SD0001 (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Why does Twinkle put two newlines before a talkback when creating a new talk page?

It doesn't do this for other templates (e.g. User talk:122.8.101.86). But talkbacks (e.g. Special:Permalink/908725748) have two newlines before them. Eman235/talk 17:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Globalize merger

As Amorymeltzer requested at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell I am here to notify you that the {{Globalize}} merger is close to being done. This means that twinkle will have to be updated since the globalize tags twinkle is currently placing won't work anymore. The tags should go from {{Globalize/US|Article/Section}} to {{Globalize|Article/Section|USA}} and the corresponding for the other subtemplates. Thanks! -- Trialpears (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

All other parts of the merger are now completed. --Trialpears (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
690 SD0001 (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Please change Warning: Usage of multiple IPs

I'm not going to create an account with Microsoft Github, so I'll ask here in the hope that someone will transfer or act on it. Please change "Warning: Usage of multiple IPs on..." to "Warning: Vandalism using multiple IPs on...". This is contained within the warnings module. The reason: Using multiple IPs is involuntary in almost all cases, and there is nothing wrong with using multiple IPs. The warning is only relevant when vandalism is being done (and even then it's a stretch). The current wording is a warning about using multiple addresses, which is incorrect. Some recent discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Archive_16#Uw-multipleIPs. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Submitted pull req. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

G14 speedy deletion criterion (add for redirects?)

Just wondering ... has the G14 speedy deletion criterion been added to Twinkle? I just discovered this criterion's existence, and it seems that I can't use it or find it via Twinkle, specifically to tag redirects per the following statement in the G14 criterion description: "G14 also applies to orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)". Steel1943 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Good idea!--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Steel1943, G14 was added to twinkle, but criterion was only relatively recently changed to include redirects in Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_74#Modified_proposal. I created a pull request to make Twinkle show G14 on redirects. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyviolations

Hi, can editor warnings for copyviolation be added to Twinkle by default as this would assist new page patrolling, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

There are several templates for cv warning in single issue notice and warning categories. Have you checked that? – Ammarpad (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I somehow never read those, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Children's personal info

The emerging consensus of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion is that kids' personal information needs to be oversighted. I'm sure I'm not the only editor who has viewed this material in terms of deletion (U5, A7, G11, G10) in the past. Could we have another option on Twinkle's CSD menu to handle this properly by initiating an oversight request, Special:EmailUser/Oversight, pre-populated along the lines of "Child's personal info at articlename"? Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Please, please, please! Legacypac (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

+1. Lowering the action threshold for this is a big win in terms of ensuring that issues like this get dealt with not by shining a huge spotlight on it (as there are several known cases of nominating for CSD immediately triggering bots to scrape the data and store it on one of numerous SpeedyDeletion wikis) but to make it easier to privately request oversight is a big win. Hasteur (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • +1 but not limited to child personal data. Twinkle should offer an "email oversight" tab that contains common reasons for oversight or allows entering a custom reason. Regards SoWhy 12:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support offering Twinkle-users a clear and simple way to report stuff which needs to be oversighted. If Oversighters find they are getting sent too many reports for non-oversight-worthy content, then the documentation at Twinkle can be fine-tuned to clarify what does and doesn't need to be reported. PamD 13:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There should be language to specify content needs to be removed before oversight is contacted. I'll save everyone my rant about how much content that should be rev del'd or oversight gets through NPP, but the goal should be to hide the content from the general public as quickly as possible, which requires the editor remove it before waiting what can be hours before an oversighter responds. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Just blank the personal details on sight, that should remove them from view and hide them from most of the general public and scrappers, who don't know enough to look in the page history, up until the Oversighter fully blocks them. Diego (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I know: I'm saying Twinkle should make that clear. A lot of people don't know that, though, so education is key here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Revdel?

Can we add in revdel support as well? I completely understand the importance of a subtle oversight, but revdel is just as important and Twinkle could make such a task much easier. I hate to piggyback on a somewhat-separate topic, but it's been proposed three times now with zero comments from others. Primefac (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way I'm going to figure out how to do that without accidentally deleting my entire account. TimothyJosephWood 16:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: Click this link: Special:Mypage/common.js > (Create the page if not already existent) > Edit page > Copy code exactly the way Primefac mentioned in the comment above > Hit "Save changes" and voila! :P Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 16:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Jiten Dhandha, TJW doesn't have a common.js ;) Primefac (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: I havent tested it yet, but I did add the code to my common.js. The prompts look simple and neat so there's no issue there (I see that only 4 ranges are allowed at max, which isnt an issue since I've never come across an article needed more than that). Now to see if it actually works when I come across an article with copyvio issues. Also, thanks for taking the time out to write the script! Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 16:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Implementation details

 Doing... I'll take a shot towards implementing this - a revdel/oversight module, seeing as we have consensus for adding both. Would appreciate feedback on what all options the dialog box should contain and other stuff. SD0001 (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is there no role account for administrators for revision deletion requests, like User:Oversight? In its absence, it is only possible to support copyvio-revdel requests for which we have a template. I don't see how custom revdel requests can be supported since I don't know of any easy way to send emails externally or access the IRC using javascript. SD0001 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I now see that User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js works delightfully for copyvio-revdel tagging, providing an interactive interface on the page history for selecting the oldid's that the template requires as parameters. Twinkle's form-based layout is clearly not the best way for copyvio-revdel tagging, as digging up the diffs and copying over the oldids is rather cumbersome. Enterprisey's script does the job much better. Hence I guess it'd be better to focus on a module solely for oversight requests. SD0001 (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The initial version of Twinkle oversight module is at User:SD0001/twinkleos.js. To install, please add importScript('User:SD0001/twinkleos.js'); //[[User:SD0001/twinkleos.js]] to your common.js page (that is, until it gets added to standard Twinkle). Feedback is welcome, especially on the options menuu, and default contents of the email subject and body fields that need to improvised. SD0001 (talk) 07:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cabayi, Legacypac, Hasteur, SoWhy, PamD, Diego Moya, TonyBallioni, Train2104, M.R.Forrester, FlightTime, Chris troutman, Apap04, Primefac, John from Idegon, Timothyjosephwood, Jiten Dhandha, and Sam Sailor: Feedback? SD0001 (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Please note "Send email" button will send the email to Oversight team. So don't click on it if you're just testing. If you wish, you can copy the code to your userspace page, install it and set the email target to yourself for sending test mails. SD0001 (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC) For now, I have reset email target to mw.config.get('wgUserName'), so that any test emails you send will go to yourself. 08:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@SD0001: Heya! Thanks for working on the script. I did a brief test and it appears to be working all right - the simple text fields are quite neat. The only little trouble I ran into was the "OS" option not appearing in the drop-down for Twinkle sometimes. Refreshing the page a couple of times seems to solve that. My knowledge of scripts and computer in general is quite limited, so maybe it's just a browser issue on my side? Jiten talk contribs 11:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jiten D: You may also see that the OS option appears at different position every time. Such issues are due to the order in which JS code is invoked, which I myself don't fully understand. Such issues would automatically disappear when this gets added to the Twinkle standard installation. SD0001 (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@SD0001: Thank for the ping. I also added a linkback for use purposes, you can remove it you want to. Thanks for doing this, I'll let you know if I have any issues. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
First pass looks nice, SD0001, but can I complicate your life a bit and suggest a different tack? Right now, the form provides the page but is otherwise blank; editors will have to manually collect and add diffs, links, etc. just as they must currently. In short, this saves a few clicks (WP:OS->email) and has a sleek Twinkle interface. What would be really neat/helpful would be one or both of two things: on diff pages, pick up the diff link and username; and on history pages, allow for selecting of multiple diffs. The former is presumably easier. What would be good to avoid would be emails with generic text ("Requesting removal of personal information from User:Amorymeltzer") without more context — that'd save follow-up emails or time spent digging through page histories. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Amorymeltzer: On diff pages, pick up the diff link  Done (will update the script soon), but username? Of what use is the username when you have the diff link? On history pages, allow for selecting of multiple diffs -- that sounds quite difficult to me. How are you thinking of doing that? SD0001 (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
There. Now a link to the page is also provided. If module was invoked from a permalink / diff page, the link to this is also provided. If invoked from article history, with any two revisions selected (via the radio buttons), a link of a diff comparing those revisions is generated. I am quite busy for 3 weeks from now, so I plan to undertake further improvements after that. SD0001 (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I installed the script but I see no interface for this, either on an history tab or a diff page. Please advise. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you not see the "OS" tab in the Twinkle dropdown menu? SD0001 (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Nope. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
SD0001, I do a lot of revision deletion so I'm interested in this but a little lost. It looks to me like there's a request for rev del options in Twinkle, with a JavaScript option as an interim, but I don't see it in Twinkle. Can someone summarize the status?S Philbrick(Talk) 14:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Sphilbrick Though the oversight module has been developed, it has not been added to Twinkle till now as no one has reviewed the pull request (ping Amorymeltzer). See #463. For now, you can enable it by installing User:SD0001/twinkleos.js. (It doesn't support revdel requests, for that User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js is the recommended script]]). SD0001 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
SD0001, Thanks for the update. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy category deletion nomination

Could someone add WP:C2F to Twinkle? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: awaiting review and deployment - https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle/pull/688 --DannyS712 (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

A little thing about CSD-ing pages

Yust an idea, it would make recent changes patrolling easier if twinkle wouldn't tag for CSD if the first revision is a redirect (and you're tagging for some non-Redirect-Criteria) and display a warning if it is. Unbekannter z34-56r-ghf-aq2-d0r (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Unbekannter z34-56r-ghf-aq2-d0r: I don't think this is needed --DannyS712 (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Can it handle multiple reports?

It would be useful if it could so as to avoid multiple edits to AIV etc. -- Lofty abyss 12:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is needed. It would be quite involved to code and gives no benefit other than reducing the number of edits made. You would anyway need to type in the names of users you're reporting if it supported reporting multiple users in one go, so you're not really saving any time. SD0001 (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Request to include discussion page in automatic G4 notice

The documentation for {{Db-repost-notice}} has been updated with instructions for including a deletion discussion in the notice. Is it possible to update the automated notice to include such discussions? Thanks! Jalen D. Folf (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

checkY Patch filed. SD0001 (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

3RR report

Using Firefox it failed when I couldn't give it more than 3 diffs (because the editor was also editing logged out, something they admitted). It asked me if I wanted to continue but clicking on Yes did nothing. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I just reported you with just 1 diff selected, it worked. SD0001 (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@SD0001: thanks, I should have tried that! Doug Weller talk 16:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Bug: Failure to place maintenance tags below hatnotes when there's also a short description template

Desired behaviour: Twinkle should always place maintenance tags beneath hatnotes. Actual behaviour: Twinkle places maintenance tags beneath hatnotes when the hatnote is at the top of the page, but fails to do so when there's a {{short description}} template above the hatnote (e.g. Special:Diff/911245313). --Paul_012 (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

checkY Patch filed. SD0001 (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Since the regular maintainer Amorymeltzer is on an extended wikibreak, would you mind merging and deploying a handful of pull requests? 7 of the latest pull reqs (#696 to #685, but excluding #692 which is a big one), are all minor and uncontroversial, and each one has been tested, and so can be merged without any fuss. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@SD0001: I've merged and synced all you mentioned but #686. That one I'm a little confused about. I'll revisit it tomorrow. Best — MusikAnimal talk 04:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Block templates don't work

No dropdowns at all, so I can't block or add a template. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Me too.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Me three. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I had a moment before going to the playground, so should be fixed. Caused by PR 694 not covering all the changes in a template's name. cc SD0001 and MusikAnimal ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Working again for me. Thanks! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Thankfully! That was not fun doing manually. N.J.A. | talk 13:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry about that! I was sure I tested this change before deploying. Many thanks to Amorymeltzer for stepping in. We've missed you! :) — MusikAnimal talk 15:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
And thanks from me. Such pleasure when it worked again! Doug Weller talk 16:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Welcome back Amorymeltzer! Glad to see you're back to save the day, again :) Looks like the old block module got loaded anyway when I tested it, sorry! SD0001 (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Bug report: Twinkle replacing "#" in revert summaries with "/"

Just noticed that when using a revert function with an optional edit summary, Twinkle is replacing hash symbols ("#") with forward slashes, which makes it inconvenient for providing links to discussions. For example I tried to provide links to a few archived discussions when reverting an IP a few minutes ago, and only later realized that my edit summary rendered as this. Can the devs check that out? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Didn't happen for me, even with your text. I suppose it's unlikely you typoed twice, so could it be IP-specific? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Odd. Thanks for checking, I'll report back if it happens again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Requesting assistance

Dear developers of this script, I have never used it, but, as I studied Wikipedia for an long time before creating my account, I saw that it was perfect. My page an XTools (here) says that I am autovonfirmed; so I'm supposed of being able to access it. However, it does not appear to the "gadgets" page on my preferences; I searched "twinkle", "tw", "t" and "w" with my browser's search function, but still nothing. Could you please advise me? Again congratulations, Swift2 global (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Swift2 global: Just be patient! You are not yet autoconfirmed. The "Rights changes" panel at the bottom of the XTools report says you will become autoconfirmed at 2019-09-15 13:39 (UTC), which is four days after your account was registered. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@John of Reading: Thanks for your advise! I thought that that section meant that I am indeed autoconfirmed, not that it's scheduled to then. As I know some basics, I can't wait using the script (but I will be patient, as you said :-) ). Best regards, @ global (post something) 19:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Feature request: section tagging

I'm sorry if this has already been requested before, but it would be nice if, when using the "Tag" feature in section editing mode it instead gave a list of sectional tags and put them in the proper spot below the section heading. Ionmars10 (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

687. SD0001 (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Coding... I have started on this. @Ionmars10: Please create a list of section tag templates that you want to see added in Twinkle (along with the wiki-markup, eg. for Cleanup bare URLs, it will be {{Cleanup bare URLs|section}}.) SD0001 (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Welcome-image

There is an issue with Twinkle's handling of Template:Welcome-image, as evidenced by this edit; it is listing my username and then the signature. Could this be fixed?--Launchballer 18:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I actually think this is the fault of the template. It was changed in 2014 which, for some reason, meant that the first parameter toggled whether "Again, welcome" showed up or not. That's... wildly non-standard, so I assume it was a mistake, but that meant that Twinkle's setup (from 2013) would be doing just this. I guess nobody noticed in the intervening five years? I'd suggest doing away with that nonsense in the template and returning the intent to what it was prior. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Done by Launchballer ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 Twinkle updates, features, and behaviors (2019-09-26 @bab8522)

The latest update mostly bring a number of bugfixes and updates for improved handling and functionality. A number of the bugs go back years! Changes not otherwise attributed were made by User:Amorymeltzer.

This section should serve as a catching ground should anything not work properly or if any new bugs crop up, as well as for any feedback or suggestions. As always, input is welcome at the GitHub repo as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Technical Morebits changes

There were a couple of changes to the Morebits.js library that might be relevant for the more technical users, some of which were already noted above):

  • Fix longstanding string-processing bug leading to erroneous + in urls (678)
  • Remove unused and ad hoc functions/objects around month names (Date.prototype.getMonthName, Date.monthNamesAbbrev, etc.), instead rely upon the built-in arrays (635, by User:SD0001)
  • Enable multiline unbinder (510, by User:SD0001).
  • In particular for non-enwiki Twinkle users, the way the API handles errors from the abuse filter and spam blacklist has changed as of 1.34.0-wmf.23. It shouldn’t cause any headaches, just a changing what messages are displayed, but in case any of those maintainers were curious or wanted to see how to update it, check out PR #707.

~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Wrong block, wrong log summary?

I used Twinkle drop-down menus to block an account because it was being misused by someone other than the apparent "owner". The talk-page notice and edit summary are – as intended – those for {{uw-ublock-famous}}, but the actual (hard) block and the block log summary ("<!-- Username closely resembles another user, hard block -->") seem to be those for {{uw-ublock-double}}. Did I do something dumb, or is there a glitch here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I now see that the same happened with this block in May, also intended to be {{uw-ublock-famous}}. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Have you seen this since? I'm curious what the exact steps were. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge tags

I noticed that when placing {{merge to}} on a page the target get tagged with {{merge}} instead of {{merge from}}. Could this be changed? A preview feature for the rationale would also be nice to have. --Trialpears (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

"Merge to" means merge to...(something), not merge from... (sometheing). I don't know how this could be more clear. If you want the page to be tagged with {{merge from}} then you should choose {{merge from}} from the options. It would be counter-intuitive to invert this (which is what you're proposing). – Ammarpad (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2019
I may have been unclear and will try to clarify. If you place a {{merge to}} tag on an article two tags are placed. The {{merge to}} tag on the current page and the {{merge}} tag on the page supplied in the "other page" field. Instead of placing {{merge}} on the other page I suggest that twinkle should place {{merge from}}, as recommended in the template documentation. --Trialpears (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The talk page discussion which is opened at the "merge to" proposed destination is also unclear: it talks about a proposed merge without showing the direction of the proposed merge. Needs some attention, please. PamD 08:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes indeed, it's the intended behavior. Looks like a bug snuck in this summer (from PR 485) leading to placing {{merge}} instead of {{merge from}}. I'm fighting a cold but I'll try and get to this today or tomorrow. PamD, could you clarify what you mean? I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Amory: I think it's another effect of the same bug - the automatically generated section heading "Proposed merge with Spanish Stonehenge" at Talk:Dolmen de Guadalperal seemed appropriate for a {{merge}}, rather than the {{mergeto}} which I'd proposed. PamD 10:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@PamD: Sorry if I'm sounding daft (brain not working properly, see prior note re: cold) but just to clarify, you mean that the talk page header should say "Proposed merge of ABC into DEF" or something like that? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
PR opened ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I recommend Echinacea, or, failing that, hot lemon, honey and whisky. But yes, you've got it: we need a header which indicates that it's a proposed merge "into" rather than just "with". Thanks. PamD 21:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
​Would "Proposed merge into..." be sufficient for a talkpage header? The edit summary already does this ("Proposing to merge X into Y"), so it's simple. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Amorymeltzer: As the discussion is opened on the talk page of the target, Y, I suggest it needs to say either "Proposed merge from X" or "Proposed merge of X into Y". PamD 21:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
How about "Proposed merge of X to this article"? SD0001 (talk) 05:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
"Proposed merge of X into this article"? ("to" sounds more like over-writing target article, perhaps?) But as long as the direction of the proposed merge is clear from the discussion header, that's fine. PamD 06:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I've opened a PR to basically just match what we were doing already in the edit summary: "Proposing to merge X into Y" ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Nominating template redirects for discussion

Can we make it so that Twinkle automatically adds "|showontransclusion=1" to the template subsituted when nominating redirects in the template namespace at Redirects for discussion? This would better comply with the nomination instructions there. Geolodus (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Module:RfD, there's no harm in including it everywhere, right? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I enable Twinkle

How do i enable twinkle in the gadgets tab ? Cricketlegacy (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cricketlegacy: Since you're a "new user" I think you should focus on learning Wikipedia before attempting semi-automated tools. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Add more user warnings

I think Template:uw-tpv4im and Template:uw-own4 should be added to Twinkle. These templates are part of existing warning series present in Twinkle (tpv and own). InvalidOS (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, PR opened. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle issue

I am unable to press submit when issuing a warning to a user on Twinkle because the box saying "Optional message" is blocking the submit button. Is there a way to fix the problem? Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pkbwcgs: I assume you are using Edge or Internet Explorer, or Safari/Chrome on an iPad? And you clicked on the preview button? For now, there's unfortunately no way to fix the problem (other than reloading the page and trying again without previewing, or switching to Chrome/Firefox), but the issue will be resolved shortly. SD0001 (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
@SD0001: I am using Google Chrome on a computer and I don't press the preview button but the submit button is blocked by the "Optional message" white box. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pkbwcgs: Well, that's surprising. I see no such issue on Chrome on Windows. Are you using Windows or Mac? Also, can you share a screenshot, (just upload it to imgbb.com and paste a link here). SD0001 (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
@SD0001: A screenshot is available here. I am unable to press the submit button because of the "warning information" and "optional message" boxes. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I see. This will get fixed as part of a greater update planned on the warn dialog (linked above). SD0001 (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Article PRODed twice

I understand that this wasn't supposed to happen, seeing as Twinkle should have checked the talk page for existing old prod templates? --Paul_012 (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

checkY Patch filed. Thanks for reporting this. Twinkle indeed checks the talk page, but presently it looks for Category:Past proposed deletion candidates rather than look for the template itself. {{Old prod}} applies the category only when 7 days have passed since it was added to the talk page, or if the declined parameter is set. SD0001 (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Add ability to tag specific section of a page

In its current state, Twinkle only supports tagging a page as a whole, meaning that users wanting to tag a specific section must edit the article manually. To solve this, I think that there should be a dropdown of some sort in the tagging dialog allowing users to choose a section that the selected tag(s) should be inserted in. Philroc (c) 18:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Philroc: Or instead, twinkle could allow tagging sections when user is in the edit mode for a section - this has been requested before, and I think I largely wrote the code necessary for it. The only thing that remains to be done is for someone to create a list of section templates that need to be added. SD0001 (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of language name for Not English template (and rough translation template?)

For the Twinkle options that add an entry to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, can you please capitalize each word in the value of the language parameter before using it? When someone marks an article as needing translation and enters "spanish" as the article's current language, the name appears as "spanish" in the {{Not English}} tag, and the entry at WP:PNT says "The language of this article is uncertain" rather than "The language of this article is Spanish" because, evidently, the search among the list of available languages is case-sensitive. I'm assuming the same tweak is needed for the "rough translation" option as well. Largoplazo (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Largoplazo, if I understand what you're asking, you were speaking specifically about Lista Canais WiFi. The issue isn't that the language wasn't capitalized, it's because the nominator didn't specify a language upon tagging the article, and only returned to add it manually later, but did not update the listing at PNT. The "uncertain" language is chosen when they leave the input form blank. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional welcome portals

Hi there. Any chance for some additional Wikiproject portal links for new users? One I have in mind is the LGBT portal. Thanks, N.J.A. | talk 12:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for NJA? What module are you referring to? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I could have been clearer. Within the "Wikiproject Welcomes" module for user talk pages. The other day I wanted to welcome someone whose first edits were to LGBTQ+ articles. A targeted welcome seemed appropriate but I ended up using "welcome-bio" and amending it to refer to and link to the LGBT portal. It was just a thought, N.J.A. | talk 13:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Ahhh, gotcha. That list could probably use a once-over, but regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies, there doesn't seem to be a welcome template for new users. There is Template:LGBT Welcome, which is in Category:WikiProject-specific_welcome_templates, but that's specifically for welcoming new users to the wikiproject, rather than welcoming someone to Wikipedia who is editing in a specific topic area. I think your approach is probably best, unless/until there exists a widely-used {{welcome-lgbt}} or something. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirect tagging

A subset of RCATs is available when tagging Redirects. Can the "quick filter" function be added here so that all/most of the RCATs can be added via Twinkle? MB 17:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The quick filter function will be added for files/redirects with the next update. But still, there are too many redirect templates for all/most to be added. But you can make any specific suggestions for more templates, if you have. Little-used templates can still be used if you add them to "custom redirect templates" list in your WP:TWPREFS. SD0001 (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, just looked and it seems there are about 250 of them. I sometimes patrol newly created redirects, and like to categorize them at the time. So I don't have any specific lists of ones I uses frequently. I note that the Capricorn gadget does include all of them - the way they are organized there may be of some help. There certainly seem to be many that are not commonly used. If you suggest a limit, maybe we should just pick the ones most often used (say the top 100 or whatever). MB 22:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Add uw innapropiate-1/2/3/4/5?

Should we add uw-innappropriate-1/2/3/4/5? Cheers! CentralTime301 18:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  1. Inappropriate is misspelled.
  2. What is the purpose for having this generic message when things like {{uw-vandal1}} and {{uw-disruptive1}} already exist?
  3. Only level one of the warning series currently exists.
—k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Feature request: exclude {{Current event}} from {{multiple issues}}

I think the template {{Current event}} should be excluded from inclusion in {{multiple issues}}. It is not exactly an issue. I also assume {{Merge to}} and {{Merge from}} are already excluded. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

What are others' thoughts? An example from Coffeeandcrumbs is this revision. This makes a lot of sense to me, and seems supported by TfD consensus, even though it technically works. {{Current}} was added to Twinkle about 18 months ago and wasn't placed in the Twinkle.tag.multipleIssuesException array. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I suppose it's also worth discussing whether {{Current}} should even be in Twinkle, as it's not really a maintenance template. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
It is a maintenance template, though it doesn't describe an issue like others. I don't see any reason to remove it. It should be listed in multiple issues exceptions. SD0001 (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
TfD consensus would seem to suggest otherwise? I've mentioned this discussion at Template_talk:Current#Is_this_a_maintenance_template? for some input, but at the very least we can certainly remove it from MI. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how the discussion is relevant? Ok, maybe it isn't a "maintenance template" if we apply the strict definition of maintenance as being something for editors to worry about, as this template is primarily intended to inform the reader, but with a maintenance part as it implies editors shouldn't sit in the edit box for too long (to avoid edit conflicts). But it is a "maintenance template" if we apply the loose definition of a housekeeping template that's going to be on the page temporarily. I think meeting the loose definition is enough to justify a place in TW's "Article maintenance tagging" module. In any case, this is a popular template with a well-understood usage. SD0001 (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with SD0001's "popular template" sentiment and I think it should be removed. Arguably popular (because pages where it's are of current interest) but certainly not required for routine "maintenance." Twinkle is for routine maintenance. The template is not a routine template and maybe never had more than "30" concurrent transclusions. That's a generous estimate actually, it's peak transclusion is really less than that, even counting many pages where it's actually not warranted (and this is something that Twinkles 'helps' with; and it shouldn't). I believe it was only added to Twinkle because up till now there's no clear guideline on what template should/should not be added. Unless we're planning to add every existing template to TW, we should drop non routine templates like this to reduce the clutter. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Since the template is removed as soon as the event ceases to be current, obviously it will never have >30 concurrent transclusions. That isn't a good criterion to gauge popularity. There are lots of templates which are added to pages where they aren't warranted, so that also isn't a reason to seek removal. You or anyone else is free to remove a usage which you think is not warranted. Lots of templates are non-routine and should be reserved for use on specialised occasions. Clutter isn't really a problem as the tagging interface is now searchable. SD0001 (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I for one would be very disappointed if it was removed altogether from Twinkle. I would just like it better if I don't have to remember to uncheck the multiple issues box every time I use it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Now I understand how {{current}} is put onto multiple issues templates. Every time I have encountered it on that template, its use was not appropriate, and that is a strong reason to take {{current}} off of Twinkle, as it encourages inappropriate uses by Twinkle users who do not know that Template Current is not a maintenance template, and has restricted scope of use.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• At one point {{current}} was involved with this editor (Twinkle), and this was causing trouble because the users of this program were adding the template inappropriately, in an automated fashion to articles. In 2011 I requested that it be taken off, and there was no opposition, and that was accomplished.

Please do not add temporal templates to Twinkle.

I would like to request that {{current}} be taken entirely out of Twinkle, if it is presently in the various menu systems of Twinkle.

If appropriate I'll post the request.

I am not a user of Twinkle, and do not ever intend to be a user.

Here is that original request in 2011 for removing {{current}} from Twinkle.

Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 21#Request to remove various temporal templates from Twinkle

The topic may have arisen since then, but I know of one occasion where it previously came up. December 2011 Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 28#Tag suggestion: Why are the "current" templates not available on Twinkle?

Appropriate need for use of {{current}} is actually exceedingly rare, for those occasions in which many editors are editing and stepping on each others edits, when there might be 100 edits in a day; generally the template should be taken down in a day or two, and the population of articles that has the template is typically under 10, and generally, should be zero. The use it was intended for actually occurs only a few times a year, perhaps less than five times a year. There is no need for {{current}} to have any association with Twinkle, as it is not a high volume template, and it should always be used sparingly. There is already a general disclaimer at the foot of every article about the accuracy and reliability of every Wikipedia article, and as such, the use of {{current}} is typically redundant and superfluous.

  Yellowdesk (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Ammarpad, Coffeeandcrumbs, Amorymeltzer, and SD0001:
Following up after a rest in the conversation, and reviewing my comments previously, Twinkle once had {{current}} added, and it was taken out of Twinkle without objection, years ago; the rationale for removal was then, and now is that {{current}} is exceedingly rare in need for use, and having it in Twinkle causes increased inappropriate use. More recently I have encountered {{current}} in the "multiple issues" template, and recall zero occasions in which it was an appropriate addition. In addition {{current}} is not a maintenance template, and its typical article population is less than ten, and fairly often zero.
I would like to further the conversation and process towards once again removing {{current}} from Twinkle, because its presence, in my experience causes superfluous additions to articles.
I invite your comments on next steps on this process.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I do not think it should be removed. As a frequent contributor at WP:ITN/C, I use it often but I just wish it was not included in Multiple issues. Perhaps, we should ping ITN and Current events, Current events noticeboard to get more view points. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
The patch for preventing the template from being included into multiple issues template has already been merged. The update will be deployed next month. SD0001 (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Ammarpad, Coffeeandcrumbs, Amorymeltzer, and SD0001:
Perhaps my comment here is the indication that a larger conversation is desirable.
I followed the github history link from the above link at pull 719 merger removing template "current" from the Multiple Issues template menu, and I looked at the the inclusion of {{current}} in Twinkle: Add {{current}} #416 in Mar 22, 2018 From this naive inspection, it appears Twinkle has the explanation / marker interior {{current}} is to indicate that "article documents a current event". If this is how the template appears internal to Twinkle and to its users, it is manifestly misleading and incorrect, as the template, as the guide for its use emphatically indicates, should not be used to indicate an article is about some current event. It is a guide to editors to not step on each other's edits, and unfortunately was created as an article template, rather than an edit notice. I would like to engaege in a conversation about revising that text, and probably removing "current" entirely from Twinkle. Shall I start a new topic?
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems this has largely stalled but I don't know where another topic should take place or what it would add.
I suppose at the places mentioned by C&C? As of yet, there's no consensus desire to remove it, if only due to minimal participation. It was added with minimal fanfare, which could suggest we'd be fine to remove it similarly, but I'm disinclined to do so unilaterally given there has been some opposition. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle Migration

I need someone who knows Twinkle better than I to help make it work for Halopedia. I'm very lost and don't know how to get it working. Halopedia is MediaWiki based, so it should work, but I don't know how to make it work. Please help! Jeb3Talk at me hereWhat I've Done 01:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Jebcubed, There's a lot that's WMF-specific, even enWiki-specific. Right off the bat, though, I can tell you that since Halopedia is on MW 1.31, you'll need a much older version than the current Twinkle tool. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Amorymeltzer, What version(s) of Twinkle would be ideal to use for MW 1.31? Jeb3Talk at me hereWhat I've Done 13:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Twinkle doesn't currently use versioning beyond commit dates (though I intend on changing that in the new year), but it looks like 1.31 was officially released June 2018, although it was last used here in April 2018. A quick start would be to just use the code as of around that time; a more involved process would be to just use the code as of now and debug as you go. You'll have more than enough work replacing all the tags, deletion reasons, venue names, etc. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Amorymeltzer, I can strip out all of the predefined deletion reasons, as the way Halopedia does deletion, every article has a custom delete rationale. Template is set up like so: {{delete|<reasoning goes here>}} Jeb3Talk at me hereWhat I've Done 13:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jebcubed: What modules (menus) of Twinkle are you interested in porting for Halopedia? SD0001 (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
SD0001, primarily the Tag function, to make adding the maintenance tags to HP articles easier. The rollback functions are already working. The other function would be adapting the tool to properly use HP's delete template. We can ignore the warning module, as Halopedia blocks users who make 1 edit considered vandalism. Jeb3Talk at me hereWhat I've Done 13:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_41&oldid=1010303335"