Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 7

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

Village pump (technical) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (technical).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

---

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

Editing own talk page while being blocked

Is there anyone who knows what's the code or script that, if we are blocked, we can still edit our own talk page so that we can request for unblock, or answer someone's question? I'm an admin in the Malay Wikipedia, when I blocked myself there, I couldn't edit my own talk page! So I'd like to change this there. Is there anyone who can help? Thanks! --Edmund the King of the Woods! (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's $wgBlockAllowsUTEdit, that needs to be setup by someone with access to the configuration file (LocalSettings.php). -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But, erm... how to use that configuration file? Is there any instruction of how to use the code into the file? --Edmund the King of the Woods! (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Open a bug on bugzilla. — Werdna talk 11:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, a developer needs to update the file for your Wikipedia. I assume they will need to check that there is a local consensus to allow users to edit their talk pages. More info on bugzilla can be found at mw:bugzilla -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Glitch

I got this glitch often, even on this page! —Coastergeekperson04^{'s talk}@11/29/2007 15:36

What's the glitch? The extra toolbar? Or the image not appearing? — Edokter • Talk • 15:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I studied this for 5 minutes, and don't see what the problem is. I hope this isn't a "gotcha"... Rjd0060 (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a script that adds another toolbar, and it is leaving the old one in place. (hint: look at the top of the image). Something in your monobook.js is doing it, clearing it will fix it, otherwise... Prodego ^talk 21:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The extra toolber is wikEd, but the bottom part is not where it should be. —Coastergeekperson04^{'s talk}@11/29/2007 23:30

"Test" on page heading

File:Tech vp with test.JPG

Am I the only one who sees the word "Test" at the top of the page (just to the right of the page title). Why is it there? Here's an image incase I'm the only one... Rjd0060 (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It was caused by the code <span id="coordinates">Test</span> (both written inside and outside nowiki tags) in #Problem with the position of coordinates with fund raising header. I have commented out the version without nowiki tags. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Database error: conflicting read lock

Lately I've been getting quite a few errors like this (I think this is the third I've seen within a few days):

Database error

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "Block::purgeExpired". MySQL returned error "1223: Can't execute the query because you have a conflicting read lock (10.0.0.237)".

This one happened while I was blocking a user; the previous ones happened while saving edits (and occurred within "Revision::insertOn", IIRC). Reloading fixes the problem. I don't recall seeing this particular error message before, so I assume it's a relatively new issue, but I have no idea what could be causing it. Posting here in case someone does know, or might find this report useful. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Corruption with cite.php

Just happened when I was editing an article: [1], attempt to fix fails. I have seen a few times before, although rarely (last time maybe half a year ago or longer). Any ideas what's causing it - and how to fix it? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Answered in the section right under this one. :) Acalamari 19:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

ref tag broken?

I just updated some formatting on Thomas Rogers (locomotive builder) to current MOS practice, but when I saved it, the <ref> rendered as ?UNIQ1218c283548c5658-ref-00000001-QINU? instead of a footnote number, and the footnote did not appear in the {{reflist}} output. Slambo (Speak) 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed the same thing. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I just had the same thing happen when notifying an IP that they were blocked.[2] EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Me three. howcheng {chat} 19:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing on this talk page (hence my rollback) right here, yet I never edited that part of the page. It's odd. Acalamari 19:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto that :-( A few of us have reported the same thing at Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes#Something_is_wrong_with_footnotes.21 ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 19:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Scroll up (and I mean through the entire page). She's dead Jim. Anyone want to go tell the devs on IRC to lock the database before this corruption runs rampant? Dragons flight (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There was just a lock right now that took place for about five minutes. Acalamari 19:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and that lock was probably associated with the software update that broke everything. Now it would be nice to lock the database again and fix it. Dragons flight (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That lock was to undo the update, according to the text that accompanied it. And editing works fine again since the lock, so all is good. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing appears to have been fixed a few minutes ago. I had this same issue, and thought it was just me, but it appears not. Anyway, it's fixed now, we can edit safely. :P --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the updates. The weird text replaced the reference text completely, so I had to go back and update it again to fix my corrupted edit. Slambo (Speak) 19:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is fixed, but an unknown number of diffs will need to be checked for errors. See User:Splarka/UNIQ_list. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Templates going crazy

Not sure what's up, but there appears to be something gone wrong with some basic feature of the Wikipedia template system. In the last fifteen minutes, suddenly communities with Template:Infobox Settlement have begun displaying a warning that the coördinates are wrong and showing an empty link for the communities' seals, although the template itself hasn't been edited in two days. Meanwhile, other templates are being affected, as you can see with Template:Ohio, which hasn't been edited in a month and a half:

Until a little while ago, the Counties line was the bottom line; there was nothing of the group6 and group7 lines.

I don't know what's going on, but it's making a mess of geography pages (the infoboxes are far wider with the "ERROR in ?UNIQ60248b0f24db3956-nowiki-00000002-QINU? invocation" warning), and I suspect that it's vandalism or unintentional damage to some sort of basic template. Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There was an upgrade that messed up. All hail Brion for fixing it. east.718 at 19:42, November 29, 2007

Hail, Brion! — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't praise them for causing only a little mess, when it was their update that created the problem in the first place. How many pages were corrupted and still need to be fixed? Dragons flight (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a system wide issue. Have we confirmed this is a little mess and not a grandiose mess? Check this out as well. spryde | talk 19:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a big mess. I've spotted several pages on my watchlist that were corrupted. Anything edited within a certain time frame may have errors embeded into it. NoSeptember 20:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific; any edit involving a substed template in that timeframe has ended up corrupted permanently. Transcluded templates only showed a temporary corruption. — Edokter • Talk • 20:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It also affected data included inside of <nowiki> tags. If we know the exact time frame of this situation, can a list of all edits made in that period be made available for us to check each one out? I think it lasted several minutes. NoSeptember 20:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This appears to happen around the 19:24 UTC time. I am going to see if I can't get a list of potential issues together. spryde | talk 20:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that it messed up the nowiki problems; that's why there's gibberish in my first comment, as I was trying to copy a line of text that included template coding. The place where I found the main problem is communities in Craven County, North Carolina, but I'm now noticing that places such as Havelock, North Carolina are displaying properly without any edits having been made to the page since I noticed the problem in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Earliest I have seen is 19:16 and the latest is 19:30. spryde | talk 20:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional corrupted edit here, occured at 19:16 (8 minutes earlier) on the much used update template. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated. spryde | talk 20:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed this page manually by editing the last good version and copying later edits into it:[3] (I accidentally duplicated the last section after an edit conflict and removed the duplicate later) Is there a chance of getting an automated fix or should we just go over affected pages manually? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest this google search, in order to catch any that were missed as they show up in the search index over the next few days. (This is less than useful at the moment because a lot of temporary problems are showing up in the search - give it a couple days)—Random832 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Splarka and I are currently whipping together a couple scripts to reverse faulty revisions introduced during the 14 minute period that the broken code was live. There are around 3,000 revisions that were potentially affected; of those (at present time) about 6-7% appear to actually be problematic. We will hopefully have them all corrected today. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Then I will not make additional complicated fixes. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

After some initial investigation by myself and MZMcBride, it appears there is not really any feasable way to automate the cleanup, as it is. I'm building a list of revisions which introduced the string 'UNIQ' during the timeframe at User:Splarka/UNIQ_list. List is not quite complete (and there is a &title issue we've got to hammer out before it is useable yet, heh). --Splarka (rant) 00:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, User:Splarka/UNIQ_list is up and running for any people with too much time on their hands. Each revision I guess needs to be checked manually, and if the UNIQ is no longer in the top edit, then the history should be checked to make sure it was reverted correctly, I guess. Fun fun! --Splarka (rant) 01:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Need Help

This is the second time I am posting this. None of the scripts in my monobook.js file work. I have Firefox so the TWINKLE script will work and there is nothing disable for Wikipedia in my browser. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There is an uncommented line at the end of your monobook.js (END WIKIBREAK SCRIPT */) which might cause javascript to abort. Put a /* in front of it. — Edokter • Talk • 00:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Weirdness on Talk:Saeb Erekat

Hey, do y'all have any idea what the first change on [4] is all about? It looks like "====" somehow got changed to "UNIQ6894a2d17c86f176-nowiki-00000002-QINU". I don't think Jaakobou did this, although I guess it could be some weird bug in his browser / external text editor. Does that UNIQ-xxx-blah-yyy-QINU notation mean anything to the Mediawiki software? <eleland/talkedits> 02:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a discussion about this, above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

site css proposal (line-height on sup, sub)

I would like to propose adding the following rule to the site css:

sup, sub { line-height: 0 }

Proof of concept follows.

This div has a line-height of 1.5, the default, in case any of your stylesheets are overriding it. There are some superscripts throughout. Superscripts in red have no other CSS applied to them, other superscripts have a line-height of 1.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis x^y nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est x^yz laborum. Suspendisse porta, leo id pellentesque imperdiet, justo nunc posuere felis, vitae viverra dolor pede et wisi. Ut metus augue, rutrum pharetra, elementum nec, porta et, mauris. Praesent auctor cursus sem. Proin ut orci. Maecenas orci. Integer tempor hendrerit nulla. In massa orci, placerat sed, sagittis in, varius at, est. Ut x^y erat. Proin at sapien quis ipsum imperdiet pulvinar. Donec vehicula metus ac sapien. In eu urna. Suspendisse dapibus, ante ut facilisis dignissim, velit mauris congue odio, x^yz nec suscipit sapien eros quis nisl. Aenean est. Etiam pharetra metus vitae est. And, as you can see with the staggering x^yztetc, a line-height of 0 will not result in the content failing to get space when it is needed.

—Random832 21:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

GAH. fails in IE. changing to the less ambitious value of 0.8. —Random832 21:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

IE seems to break regardless on use of nested superscripts.—Random832 21:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Works in Safari 3. And I like it !!! Can't we make this browser specific ? We have plenty of that already, so. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Issue with API and bots

There is some issue this morning where bot queries to the API are limited to 500 records instead of 5000. The developers know about it. VeblenBot 14:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed in revision 27975. VeblenBot 14:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Relapse

In edit mode, [[relapse]] occurs after this colon:relapse In un-edit mode, I can't see it. Can you? If not, should we fix the bug or rename the "Relapse" article? Art LaPella 16:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The #Disappearing links? section below is the same problem. Art LaPella 16:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Disappearing links?

Suddenly this morning I notice that some links are disappearing in my browser. For example, the word vulnerable is invisible on my screen (if you just saw "the word is invisible," then you have the same bug -- it should say "the word [[vulnerable]] is invisible"), and there is no link to click on for that word. I am using IE 7; I can't test with another browser until later on. I can't at the moment figure out which links are disappearing and which aren't; for example, "[[browser]]" above shows up just fine. I've checked my preferences and flushed my browser cache. Any other suggestions would be most welcome! --Russ (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: I did figure out part of the issue -- vulnerable is a short article, and I had my stub link preference set at 250. When I changed it to 25, the link reappeared, so obviously the problem is with the formatting of stub links. Why these links disappear, however, is still a mystery to me. --Russ (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm able to reproduce this bug by fiddling with my stub prefs. It's not a browser bug or CSS thing, though. The link is not present in the HTML at all. --- RockMFR 16:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got the same problem. I have my preferences set so that I can tell stubs, and don't really want to lose that ... but I guess if that's what fixes it, I'll have to. Pastordavid 16:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Bug #12165 created on Bugzilla. --Russ (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

me too.</aol> - at least this one's not mangling actual wikimarkup.—Random832 16:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be fixed now; try reloading the page and the link to vulnerable should appear in this sentence. You may need to clear your browser's cache (shift-reload etc). If the problem reappears, post here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good. It has been fixed for me. PrimeHunter 17:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes to unwatched pages showing up on my watchlist

This is not a big deal, and I apologize if it's been reported already, but changes by User:BOTijo (comments on capitalization redirects) to pages I don't watch have been showing up on my watchlist. At the moment I can see the following (skipping pages that I do watch).

   *( diff) (hist) . . mb  Carbonated Sierra-Finch‎; 09:34 . . (+32) . . BOTijo (Talk | contribs) ({{R from other capitalisation}})
    * (diff) (hist) . . mb Brown-capped Tit-Spinetail‎; 09:12 . . (+32) . . BOTijo (Talk | contribs) ({{R from other capitalisation}})



29 November 2007

    * (diff) (hist) . . mb Blue-billed Black-Tyrant‎; 21:22 . . (+32) . . BOTijo (Talk | contribs) ({{R from other capitalisation}})
    * (diff) (hist) . . mb Black-throated Shrike-Tanager‎; 20:14 . . (+32) . . BOTijo (Talk | contribs) ({{R from other capitalisation}})

    * (diff) (hist) . . mb Black-backed Water-Tyrant‎; 20:11 . . (+32) . . BOTijo (Talk | contribs) ({{R from other capitalisation}})

    * (diff) (hist) . . mb Bay-capped Wren-Spinetail‎; 16:49 . . (+32) . . BOTijo (Talk | contribs) ({{R from other capitalisation}})
    * (diff) (hist) . . mb Araucaria Tit-Spinetail‎;

I do watch a number of bird articles, but not these. I'm just mentioning it in case it's a symptom of a bigger problem. —JerryFriedman 19:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If soembody moves a page you're watching to another name, then the new name will show up in your Watchlist. Corvus cornix_talk 19:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I see what's happening. They're redirects that I created and then forgot about. Never mind. ——JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WPCITE Mozilla add-on generates footnote reference code

We have created a Firefox add-on that automatically generates footnote reference code for whatever web page you are looking at. All you have to do is right click on the web page and select WPCITE. This can save a lot of time when citing sources. The add-on beta test, wpcite.xpi, is now available for download from Mozdev. This is a beta test version that works in Firefox 2. It will be modified later today to also work in Firefox 3. If any developers would like to join the project, please visit the WPCITE project page at Mozdev and add your name to the mailing list. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Very nice. I would like to see an option to have it display in a single line format. When inserting cite templates into the body of an article, having the template stretch out to one entry per line can really throw off a page. In my opinion at least. I would rather have it in a single line format: {{cite news|title=|url=|accessdate=...}}↔NMajdan•talk 16:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Very nice idea, and single-line-format seconded (with spaces between entries would be good, similar to ottobib's output, as it allows for overflow linewrap in the edit window (otherwise you're more likely to get the horizontal scrollbar)). -- Quiddity (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

C:CSD bug?

Talk:///, which was recently speedy deleted, isn't disappearing from the C:CSD list (although there, it appears as [[Talk:///.]] -- notice that it currently shows up as a valid link). Anybody know how to take care of this, or should it go to Bugzilla? Tijuana Brass 04:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The job queue is moderately high at the moment: 681,030 items. Removing Talk:/// from display in CAT:CSD is probably one of those items; nothing to worry about, I don't think. Gracenotes^T § 04:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit odd that the page listed on the category reads Talk:///. (notice the period), yet when you click it you go to Talk:/// (without a period) but [[Talk:///.]] (with period) doesn't exist either (but somehow when you click the one with the period, you are redirected to the other one). - Rjd0060 04:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, disregard my last comment. You're right, it's a MediaWiki bug: [[Talk:///.]] links to Talk:///. Perhaps it's a problem with subpages in the talk namespace? An admin wishing to delete the page may go here. Gracenotes^T § 05:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I had just figured this out too. It's not just in talk that a period after a slash is removed. Seems to happen in any namespace. Gimmetrow 05:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also happens in any link ending in "/.": see User:Gracenotes/Bug. I have a feeling it's Tidy's fault. (The third theory in 30 minutes =]) Gracenotes^T § 05:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know if this is on BugZilla? - Rjd0060 05:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on the test page, the source code reads:

<a href="/wiki/User:Gracenotes/." title="User:Gracenotes/.">User:Gracenotes/.</a>

So now it's a Firefox bug, it seems. O_O (now 4 theories) Gracenotes^T § 05:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Just checked with IE and no problem. The links go to where they're supposed to be. Good catch... Rjd0060 05:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? It looks like the behavior exists in both IE 7 and Opera as well. Despite the fact that the link's href is "/wiki/User:Gracenotes/.", it points to "/wiki/User:Gracenotes/" in all three browsers. For me, at least. Gracenotes^T § 05:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I only tried the talk///. and talk/// links. I'm using IE6 and both links took me to the correct place, opposed to my 2.0.0.11 firefox ... - Rjd0060 05:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Firefox bug or not (I'm using Camino, which uses the same engine), I'm not sure how that would explain it remaining on the actual C:CSD page. In any case, it's gone now, so... something happened. Might've just been the lag as originally suggested. Tijuana Brass 06:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the version with the period remained in the C:CSD page because many admins clicked on it and went to the version without the period. Gimmetrow 06:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're checking this, make sure you check the article and not just the edit window from a redlink. In Mozilla firefox:

• [5] (works)
• [6] (does not work as expected)
• [7] (does not work as expected)

In fact, the latter two even preview without a period. Gimmetrow 06:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure is odd. Like you said, the preview (the bar at the bottom of the window) does not show the period, but while hovering over it, there is a period...- Rjd0060 06:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

See also non-MediaWiki test page. Gracenotes^T § 07:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Slaps head. Why didn't I think of these examples with existing pages: [8] goes to slashdot in Safari, but slash in Mozilla, [9] and [[:/.]] goes to slash in both. Gimmetrow 07:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it Secure?

I'm wanting to place a code on the Monobook, but I'm wanting to double check to see if it's secure and safe and won't compromise my account first. SKYNET X1000 10:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Which script in particular? Can you provide a link to the page where it is hosted? MER-C 11:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to your question [10] this is the link to the script page

Yes, it's fine. MER-C 12:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Message received and understood, thanks for confirming that it's safe to use. SKYNET X1000 13:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Donation counter

So when I alternatively click on "show more" "hide this" on the donation counter, the two views give me numbers of donators that differ by the thousands. Anyone know why? Someguy1221 11:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

32,117 (expanded version) as opposed to 35,088 (small version). Some difference. :-) Stwalkerster talk 00:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Each number is generated by different processes at different intervals, and they are cached (both server-side and client-side) differently. It's not unusual for there to be a discrepancy. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Pages never finish loading

Pages are not completely loading. Status is "Waiting for upload.wikimedia.org". -- SEWilco 03:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? - Rjd0060 05:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It was happening at that time but stopped. IRC opinion is "lag". -- SEWilco 05:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a common problem, I've been having the same experience, with my browser when pages aren't loading, however most of the times pages don't load at all. This is happening with both of my browsers Mozilla and the standard IE 7, most of the times i have to reload the entire browser SKYNET X1000 14:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What would it take to change the master default search setting?

(I.e., change the program so that the main namespace and portal namespace are the defaults for new users who haven't used "my preferences").

What would be entailed in physically changing the master default search setting, to include both the main namespace and the portal namespace?

Is it just a setting that an admin could change? Or would it require a developer to modify the program?

I'd like to know the logistics of this before submitting a proposal for discussion to change the master default search settings.

The Transhumanist 05:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a simple change that would need to be done by a sytems admin. Before requesting such a change, you will need to demonstrate that there is consensus for such a change here on the English Wikipedia, which I frankly doubt you will be able to obtain. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This sort of thing is a routine change for a shell-access developer; however, they won't make it unless you get consensus first. --ais523 12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is the purpose of submitting a proposal for discussion. Thank you. See ya at WP:VPR.  ;-) The Transhumanist 12:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits except for new articles option.

I'd like an option in preferences to default mark my edits as "minor" except for new article creation (which would default to not being marked as minor). I would particularly like to have this on Wiktionary, but am requesting it here because this is where it will get read. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Try this user script:

addOnloadHook(function() {
    var form = document.getElementById("editform");
    if (!form)
        return;
    if (wgArticleId > 0)
        form["wpMinoredit"].checked = true;
})

(Not the same thing as a user preference, I know, but that's what scripts are here for =]) Gracenotes^T § 06:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

edit links

An article I am working on, Riverina, is a featured article candidate. One of the reviewers has noted a problem with the edit link in one section appearing in the middle of a paragraph. He suggests it may be his browser or OS. I have the same problem. I use Firefox and XP. Is there anything I can do to fix this? Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 07:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BUNCH for how to fix this.-gadfium 08:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Master search default setting

Are there specific reasons why the search box doesn't include portal space in searches by default?

The Transhumanist 14:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure is. Go to your Preferences and click on the Search tab. Then check/uncheck the appropriate boxes in the section titled Search in these namespaces by default:. When you are done, click Save, and after that, don't forget to bypass your cache for the settings to take effect. - Rjd0060 15:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Guess I read your question wrong. You probably already know how to change the search options. - Rjd0060 18:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wrongtitle

There's something wrong with LOL (^^,) page. (I use Firefox on Windows XP; I didn't check other OSs and browsers yet.) --­ 19:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks OK to me. If you're wondering about the difference between the title bar and the article title displayed at the top of the page, this is because the title shown at the top of the page (but not the title bar) needs to be able to be copied and pasted to form a valid wiki link. For example, the link LOL (^^,) works but not [[LOL <(^^,)>]]. Tra (Talk) 21:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about the extra title. However, User:RockMFR fixed it and it's fixed (gone) now. --­ 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates broken

For a short time, some templates were broken in articles, notably {{Infobox Musical artist}}. One of the examples in the template docs is still broken (it could be fixed with a purge). What happened? Gimmetrow 06:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the above discussion ##ifexist limit is relevant. -- SEWilco 06:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing page in Nederlands

To whom ita may concern;

I can't save my page in Nederlands. I set up my page in all the portals, but I can't conclude in Nederlands. I don't know why.

I know German, but they speak another language that I can understand quite a bit, but I can't write yet, then I am asking for help here.

My search name is Luciana Bene/ Lucianabene/ Lubene, anybody has my own name in that country, there is no reason, that I can't save my information.

Please reply as soon you can.

Sincerely,

Luciana Bene info@lucianabene.com Wikipedia User Name: Lubene —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubene (talk • contribs) 07:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are Lubene there. Why do you want to save a page in a Wikipedia language you cannot write? And what do you mean by "I set up my page in all the portals" and "my information"? Does it mean you created a page about yourself in a lot of Wikipedia languages? Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. PrimeHunter 13:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Prod in February 2005

There's a prod tag in February 2005, right between the 19th and 20th, and I'll be darned if I can figure out how to get rid of it. Any help? --UsaSatsui 08:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. It was in February 20, 2005, before the title, and thus you didn't see it when you clicked the section edit link in February 2005. I removed it by editing the whole page, not just "section=1". (Take a look at the URLs in the address bar of your browser...)

BTW, should February 2005 really be in Category:Days in 2005? It's a month! Lupo 08:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Aha! Many thanks. --UsaSatsui 15:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

protected titles

Since the system may need to be changed to transclude the pages anyway even if they exist, and this really is the necessary procedure anyway, I'd like to propose adding the following language to Mediawiki:cascadeprotectedwarning: If you are creating this page and it is a protected title, make sure you remove it from that list. —Random832 15:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Parser update

Any news on the parser update mentioned a way above? I understand that it will mean that unfollowed branches of #if, #ifeq, etc functions are not expanded and hence do not count towards the limits, including the new #ifexist limit. On the template network I'm working on (at WP:LOCE/R), I don't think the #ifexist count can be brought below 100 without this update. Happy‑melon 15:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

New user can't print article

A new user has said that Fetus will not print except for the first page. They claim it is possible a corrupted token, whatever that means. They have been getting a bit antsy at Talk:Fetus, and I have no idea what they are talking about (nor do I have a desire to waste paper to see if it will print over here), so I am bring up their concern here. I cannot provide any more information, but you can contact the user experiencing the problem at User talk:Icarus530. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the issue started in this edit. The print preview cuts off in Firefox, but looks alright in IE6. I'll take a look at it later if nobody can figure it out. --- RockMFR 16:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I adjusted the spacing of the images inserted in that edit, and now the print preview works on my browser. So is this fixed now?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. --- RockMFR 19:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of #ifexist parser function

I've just cleaned up some templates that were causing upwards of 2000 database queries per page-load ({{usercheck}}, the one responsible being {{highrfc-loop}}. To ensure that this does not happen again, I've introduced some changes to ParserFunctions in r27946 which make it impossible to use #ifexist more than 100 times per page-load starting from the next time the code is taken live. You may find that some templates no longer work, which used to use {{highrfa}}, {{highrfb}}, and their relatives, will no longer work.

Thanks, — Werdna talk 10:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make substituted {{#ifexist:}} statements not count towards this limit, since they are one-time database loads? This is useful for simplifying statistics pages (for example, using regex patterns to remove all deleted pages from an existing statistics page, or allowing an external script to skip page checking which is more complicated offsite than using MediaWiki). —{admin} Pathoschild 15:39:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that this would still present a denial of service vulnerability (think submitting a page filled with ifexist statements to the article size limit. Each one takes 3ms, it's 19 characters per check, this could fill an article up to 2MB, so we get a finished article of something like 100,000 requests. This would tie up one quarter of one of our ten $12,000 database servers for five minutes. — Werdna talk 00:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This change will probably break the Wikipedia:Protected titles system. --- RockMFR 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Three solutions might exist for this: 1. Limit entries to 50 per page, or 100 if the second #ifexist in {{protected title}} can be removed. Replace * with #. 2. The template can be edited to leave out #ifexist: actually transclude the page if it exists. 3. Implement a better solution than an unintuitive hack. Wikipedians have a knack for finding those, though :< Gracenotes^T § 18:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Change the implementation of #ifexist (could the queries it's causing be batched up somehow?) —Random832 21:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, "transclude it anyway" could work well if protected titles were on a page that acts like a css/js file: those don't actually paste in the content for display purposes, but they do "count" as transcluding, see User:Random832/test.css and User:Random832/testprottitle for proof of concept. (Or we could just count on them never being created without being removed from the lists)—Random832 21:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that might be wrong. They do cause scripts to show up in categories, so it might be fully parsed/transcluded behind the scenes.—Random832 21:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Then fix the Wikipedia:Protected titles system. I don't know how this page works, but I have added the technical restriction with good reason, and it needs to be in place. — Werdna talk 00:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not fix the implementation of #ifexist so that it doesn't generate 2000 database queries? (certainly it's reasonable to have the technical restriction in place until that is done, but as a permanent solution?)—Random832 06:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why people need to check if 2000 pages exist anyway. — Werdna talk 10:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of #ifexist on WP:PT subpages is to prevent the pages being transcluded there (and therefore protected) if they do exist. The page uses cascading protection as a method of preventing various non-existing pages being created, as a method of working around the lack of protection for nonexistent pages. --ais523 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why checking 2000 pages for existence alone (not pulling up their contents) is such a huge burden on the servers. Why does it need to make a separate query for each page that is being checked? I _agree_ with this as a temporary fix, but a better solution should be used in the long run. And calling it "abuse" is out of line.—Random832 14:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's all stay calm. From a perspective of a user who just expects things to work, and expects that it's impossible to mount a DOS attack, it was not abuse. Once it was realized that the implementation was costly, it became clear that having numerous queries of that form does present a burden to the servers. There are solutions being discussed on the wikitech mailing list to reimplement the parser function so that it is not so costly, but these require some complex code, so they certainly will not be in place soon. For the time being, perhaps we write a script to handle updates to the the protected titles page? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Then fix the Wikipedia:Protected titles system."

You acknowledge in the following sentence that you "don't know how this page works," so the above nonchalant instruction is rather rude. So is your claim that good-faith use of the #ifexist function constitutes "abuse." Brion Vibber has told us that the developers will handle any necessary technical restrictions directly (as you're doing now), so we shouldn't worry about server load or bother enacting limitations beyond those in MediaWiki. Now you're suddenly blaming us for failing to do exactly that (despite the fact that no one even informed us of the issue until now).

Incidentally, the Wikipedia:Protected titles system exists because MediaWiki includes no alternative means of protecting nonexistent pages. (Perhaps you could consider adding one.) Back in April, I discussed the setup with Voice of All (who didn't complain of any problems, and actually assisted me by tracking down a minor bug that had recently been introduced), so please don't act as though we haven't sought developer feedback. —David Levy 19:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting into a holy war over word choices in what I've said here: Change the word 'abuse' to 'overuse' if it helps you sleep better. Anyway, I was hoping to do some work on the blocking system that would have allowed this sort of restriction, but unfortunately, I'm flat out for the next year or so (I'm in my final year of High School, and they lay it on pretty thick here), and so I probably won't have time to implement it (despite the fact that I've wanted to since something like the start of the year). — Werdna talk 12:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is quite a feat to re-jig the parser to do it all in one go (from a programming perspective — we'd need to add placeholders, and replace them after the end of parsing, and all that jazz. A few messages on the mailing list has made it clear that it is not as simple as "just use a LinkBatch". Those proposing an alternative implementation of the parser function may be interested to read Tim Starling's comments on the matter:

... I
think you're getting the idea of how complicated it is. I told the guy in
#mediawiki who wanted to do 4000 #ifexist calls on a page that optimising
this case would take days, and that he should just forget it and find some
other way to do what he was doing. Unless someone comes up with some
really, really valuable applications that can't be done any other way, I'm
happier with just having a limit. If you have days to spend on
optimisation work, I have some other ideas for where you should be
spending them.

-- Tim Starling

— Werdna talk 22:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand the above correctly? There's a much better solution, but it won't be implemented because it "would take days"? Please tell me that I've misunderstood. —David Levy 19:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not fair. Tim's been incredibly busy with work on an updated parser, a new file repo system, and the Ogg Handler. All files related to MediaWiki are publicly available for anyone to download and modify at http://svn.wikimedia.org/. Unless you are going to begin coding something better, you'll simply have to wait until someone else gets around to it. --MZMcBride 19:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning Tim's work ethic or demanding that he (or anyone else) do anything. I'm questioning his belief that this issue is so unimportant that he would actually discourage others from spending "days" to develop a better solution. (If I possessed the knowhow, I would do so myself.) —David Levy 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As for WP:PT, there is an extension that would allow a MediaWiki page much like MediaWiki:Bad image list that would block the creation of protected titles and would even allow regex to do so. The extension is mw:Extension:Title Blacklist. Hopefully either that system or a better one can be implemented to fix this particular problem. As for the broader #ifexist issues, if there were an easy fix, someone would have committed it already. --MZMcBride 19:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know why has this extension has not been implemented at the Wikimedia wikis? Are you aware of any negative effects? —David Levy 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the extension was created pretty recently, I believe. It's also still in beta. The code would need to be reviewed by Tim or Brion or one of the other devs to look for any possible security implications. There's also the issue of performance issues and whether or not an extension like that may cause any of those. The extension itself exempts sysops from any of the title blocks, but does so without any warning or indication; that could be problematic. Also, it appears to block editing if a regex is written poorly and covers pages that it shouldn't. --MZMcBride 20:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well, it's nice to know that there's some progress on that front. Thanks for the info! —David Levy 20:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It also abuses the localisation system for configuration. — Werdna talk 07:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody help me understand this? I saw this discussion last week and I just read about it again on the Signpost. I was going through the list of affected articles and came across one I edit a log, 2007 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings. Both the log and the generated HTML say there are 948 ifexists in the code. I'm looking at the code to the page, and the code to the template being used and I see no ifexist statements. Am I missing something?↔NMajdan•talk 14:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is {{Cfb link}}. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Is the issue resolved if I subst it?↔NMajdan•talk 14:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, still confused. Take a look at 2007 Buffalo Bulls football team. There are 10 uses of the {{cfb link}} template which makes six #ifexist calls. That's 60, but the page is saying there are 138. I looked at every other template in the page and cannot find where the difference is coming from.↔NMajdan•talk 14:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured it out.↔NMajdan•talk 14:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)