MediaWiki talk:Youhavenewmessages

Revert

{{editprotected}}

Can someone please revert this page to the version that says 'You have new messages (last change)'? The current version ('Your user talk page has been edited') should at least have been discussed here first, and it would be very confusing for new users ('so what?' is the obvious response). Even a milder version was reverted earlier. --ais523 18:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If this change is accepted, MediaWiki talk:Newmessageslink will need to be reverted too. --ais523 18:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to this unilateral change. – Chacor 19:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reason? J Di 19:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That it was unilateral? We shouldn't be making changes to well-established things without discussion. – Chacor 19:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral changes are made without discussion all the time. I'll start a discussion on one of the village pumps if discussion is what the people want. J Di 19:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't any consensus for a change, so yes, please start a discussion. – Chacor 19:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#"You have new messages". J Di 19:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But messages shouldn't be making assumptions; not all edits to user talk pages are new messages. J Di 19:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

CSS id needed

{{editprotected}} I would like to add a CSS id to this message. We currently have some user scripts that do things with this message, but those scripts only work in some skins since different skins put different tags around this message. And none of the skins add an id, just a class, so it is very inefficient to find the item from javascript. For that reason we usually see to that all MediaWiki messages have a CSS id. I want to change this message to this:

<span id="mw-newmessages">You have $1 ($2).</span>

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged this with {{editprotected}} even though we're both admins, since this is a very low-traffic page. Needless to say, I support this change. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 06:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. {{editprotected}} is not meant to draw attention, as the tag says, it should only be used when there is consensus. I'd suggest leaving a note at the relevant village pump if you want opinions on the proposed change. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer to see the id "youhavenewmessages" simply for consistency with the name of the mediawiki page, unless this is the only instance where newmessages could possibly be used. --Izno (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Izno: I thought it was kind of long. But you are right, better to avoid any risk of name collisions. And we usually do use the full name of the message in the id. Among other things it gives a good hint about which MediaWiki message inserts the code, when one views the source of the rendered page.

Since this has been announced on the Village pump for about day now, I have now changed this message to this:

<span id="mw-youhavenewmessages">You have $1 ($2).</span>

I have just checked in all the skins, it works fine. Now I'll have to update the scripts that modify the newmessages bar. And I'll inform the users who have their own hardcoded versions in their personal .js pages. Thankfully they are not that many. And their code will now be simpler and more efficient.

--David Göthberg (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Request

{{editprotected}} How about adding <small>Please think to check the history for other messages.</small> to the end of the template. It would be very useful for anyone. The user may not know that there is another message if they do not look at the history. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 22:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this would be contentious change and not one to be taken undertaken from one editprotected tag. I recommend you propose this somewhere more discussion can be had, perhaps WP:VP/PR--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem with orange bar

Sorry if this is the wrong page, but I recently got an orange bar new-message notification telling me my user talk page had been modified by two users, with the wording of the text implying that there were two new messages waiting for me. In fact, it turned out, from looking at my user talk page history, that one of those two users was SineBot. Would it be possible to alter the code for the wording of the orange box such that bots are ignored when counting the total number of unique users who have written on your user talk page since you last looked at it? Thanks. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 08:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The first part of the message may indeed come from MediaWiki:youhavenewmessages, but under some circumstances, MediaWiki:youhavenewmessagesfromusers is used instead. In both cases, the text "a new message"/"new messages" comes from MediaWiki:newmessageslinkplural and the text "last change"/"last changes" comes from MediaWiki:newmessagesdifflinkplural. These meta-templates are not given enough information to decide whether the edits are human or bot. I'm pretty sure that we cannot do anything about it simply by altering these pages - it would need a change to the way that the underlying software operates.

I shall inform Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages of this thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly right, it would require a change to the MediaWiki software. I'm not even sure how well it would work to try to exclude bots, because sometimes a bot will leave a real message while other times it will just be doing maintenance. For example, this bot-generated message should count as a "real" message, while this one shouldn't. It might be better in some ways to ignore minor edits instead, or maybe (if it doesn't wind up as a too-expensive database query) minor edits by users with the nominornewtalk right.

At any rate, since there's no edit we can make here to fix this issue besides gutting the messages entirely, I'm going to disable the {{editprotected}} request. Anomie⚔ 16:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This would indeed require a code change. After you have a proposal (how should it work, how should it handle bot edits, minor edits, etc.), you can file a bug and things will proceed from there. Superm401 - Talk 09:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)