Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Merge automation

It would be nice to make merge suggestions more automated with Twinkle. Here are suggestions in order of priority:

1. When a page is tagged with template:merge to, Twinkle should also tag the destination with template:merge from.
2. The talk page of the destination should be automatically edited with a new section.
3. The new talk page section should be automatically given the subject "Merge discussion" with body text "Propose merging Source Page to Destination Page. Rationale:" (the rationale could be given in a dialog as with XFD).
4. The parameter "|discuss=Talk:Destination Page#Merge discussion" should be added to each merge tag.
5. There should be an option for merging from and/or to a section.

It might make sense, if these are implemented, to move merging to the XFD module. --JFHutson (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a perennial request; I have often dismissed it as unnecessary, but perhaps I should really implement it. I'll think about it, but I'm going away soon and won't be able to do it for a couple of weeks. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Need to put this in the issue tracker. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add myself to the list of folk who think that, when you get the chance, this would be useful. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is finally coming to Twinkle. It doesn't quite follow your proforma (for example, the discussion is started on the talk page of the article where Twinkle is invoked - and no section-tagging functionality) but it should still make you happier. If you have any comments or questions after the new code goes live, please post here (in a new section so it gets seen). — This, that and the other (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Y It's here. Give it a go! I welcome your feedback. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

{{uw-username}} removal?

See WT:UAA#Simultaneous warning and reporting. This is not a problem with Twinkle at all, it is more an issue of carelessness and possibly mixed messages given to username patrollers. For the time being, could we remove this from Twinkle? (It's under "single issue warnings) We are trying to avoid a scenario that is being repeated on an almst hourly basis wherein a user gets this tag dropped on their page and then is also reported at UAA. If their name is a blatant violation we usually just soft block them, but having a recent notice that says "hey let's discuss your username" is muddying the waters, it seems some users are thinking of it like warning vandals when in fact it is not the same situation at all. If they have to actually look up the template it is hoped that they will take the time to read it as well, which seems not to be happening much currently. Again, obviously not Twinkle's fault, but removing could really help with this situation, at least in the short term. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be nominated for deletion then? Amalthea 01:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, It has a legitimate purpose in cases where there is no blatant violation of the username policy, but it is being used constantly in cases where there is a blatant violation. Part of the reason for that was an unfortunate disconnect where the headers and edit notice at UAA were actually telling users to do so, but part of it is also that "patrolling" users are just so used to dropping a notice with twinkle before reporting any kind of problem for admin action that they seem to believe that leaving this notice is a necessary prerequisite to reporting at UAA, which is actually exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. So, it's more a problem of education than a problem with the template itself or twinkle, but removing it could really help cut down on people using it mindlessly. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see the problem here. There are two things we could do here, I think:

• change the description of the warning from "username is against policy" to something a bit clearer; and/or
• add a confirmation popup after the user clicks "submit", reminding them that the warning is not to be used for blatant violations

What do you think? — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

And/or a bold red warning when the warning is selected from the drop down.
If it's useful in some circumstances then I'd always rather educate than remove, otherwise someone will just ask for it back sooner or later.
Amalthea 02:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize a bold red warning was an option, that would be great. Something that makes it clear that this is not actually a "warning" at all, but a request to start a discussion and if they would rather report to just do that. But worded way better than what I just wrote. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

How about something like "{{uw-username}} should not be used for blatant username policy violations. Blatant violations should be reported directly to UAA (use Twinkle's ARV tab). {{uw-username}} should only be used in edge cases in order to engage in discussion with the user." Does it say the right things? — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long, but a fix is waiting to be synched over. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

awesome, thanks for your help. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggested to Beeblebrox, who agreed, that it would be good to similarly deal with {{uw-coi-username}}, which is often problematically issued to users who are also reported to UAA for blatantly advertising a company with the same name as their username. Can you please do the same thing for {{uw-coi-username}} as you did for {{uw-username}}? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done — This, that and the other (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Templates for merger

Recently, I opened a debate regarding the merger of {{Geographic Location 2}} into {{Geographic Location}}, using the regular {{tfd}} template via Twinkle. Due to a lack of consensus, an administrator closed the debate ultimately and stated I could open a new debate using {{tfm}} instead. I don't believe I recall seeing that template in the Twinkle panel, so unless I am missing something, perhaps adding that would be a good idea. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 21:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

support I went through the same routine, and had to do a TfM manually. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth having this in Twinkle. First, though, I would like to do to {{tfm}} what Martin did to {{tfd}} - make it substituted so it can link to the correct TFD daily page properly. I'll work on that right away, but the Twinkle functionality might have to wait a while - I'm working on adding proper support for general {{merge}} discussions at the moment. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the code; it should be live soon. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done — This, that and the other (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Red link cleanup

Any chance to add {{Cleanup red links}} to it?

Possibly; however I'm not super keen on it. I'll have to look at the "subtags" of {{cleanup}} and see if they are worth using. If they add an extra tracking category that is a big plus. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Incompatible with Classic skin?

I'm a long time Wikipedia editor and decided to finally start using this tool. I see the links atop the page (e.g. when looking at diffs for articles I watch), but pressing a link (like revert) doesn't do anything. The only thing I can think of is that I'm using the Classic Skin which is super old. Anyone else tried using this with the classic skin? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 00:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get it fixed for you. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Should be fixed now. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Localisation on Telugu Wikipedia successful

I am happy to report setting up Twinkle on Telugu Wikipedia. I have started using it and find it very useful for various admin tasks. Thanks to all the contributors for this tool. I wish all the developing wikipedias make use of this great tool.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! May I suggest you add this code to te:MediaWiki:Gadget-morebits.css:

body .ui-dialog.morebits-dialog .ui-dialog-title {
  height: 1em;
}

This will make Twinkle look less ugly. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Added. Thanks --Arjunaraoc (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD tagging and CSD tagging

So yesterday, I tried nominating an article for deletion (D'mingo). However, while nominating it, the page had already been tagged for speedy deletion as a copy-vio. Thus I got a message saying something like "There is a speedy deletion tag on the page. Do you want to remove it?", after which I clicked Cancel, thinking that the nomination would stop, but instead it continued, and thus the page was AfD'd, while still having a CSD tag. Should this be changed so that, if an article has a CSD tag and you want to nominate it for deletion, it should say first "There is a speedy deletion tag on the page. Are you sure you want to nominate it for deletion?", and if the editor clicks "No", then the nomination will stop? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please remove the "vandalism" summary.

We have far too many TW users abusing this rollback feature, using it when they should be using the AGF revert. I'm sure I'm not the first person to bring this up. Has there been discussions on this before?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are three rollback options in Twinkle - AGF, "normal" and vandalism. In all honesty I've never been sure whether the vandalism one is particularly helpful. In most cases, I think it would be better to WP:DENY and just use "normal" rollback. However, rollback is one of our most frequently-used tools, and I am hesitant to make any big changes without extensive discussion. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking "normal" and AGF should suffice. In normal you can add a custom summary. But far too many editors are biting with the vandal version. I'm not opposed to discussion. Is this the best venue?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think the rollback in Twinkle needs to be tied to the rollback userright or removed altogether. Too many users abuse it with Twinkle but it's not a 'technical rollback' and so they arn't admonished for it.--v/r - TP 13:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that TParis (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

• I have found that I practically only ever user Twinkle's standard rollback option; even if it is "rvv", I'd rather input an edit summary manually. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• One solution might be to only display the V option for rollbackers. Another would be to have a checkbox under the preferences (defaulted to off) that would only display the V option if checked. Turning this option on would present a popup message reminding the user of WP:NOTVAND. A combination of the two would be even better.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  14:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• I suggest a compromise: make the big red "rollback (vandal)" link significantly smaller and less red. It's just too darn tempting to click on! If users are misunderstanding how the feature should be used, it might be better to try and make the feature more self-explanatory than just to summarily remove it. —Noiratsi (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • By the way LGR, thanks for the link to WP:NOTVAND, which I hadn't read in detail before. I agree it might be nice to direct people to that before they start rollbacking left right and center —Noiratsi (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd be curious if there is a way to see all edits that have been reverted using TW vandal, in order to perform a review. I suspect the vast majority of such reverts are improperly labeled as vandalism.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  15:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Hear hear. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• I've been set straight before on this issue: I thought that what Twinkle did could only be done if someone had been granted rollback separately. TParis's comment, which I hope is technically correct, is worthwhile considering: if rollback comes with Twinkle, it should be a right specifically granted to individual editors. I'm sick of the false vandalism accusations that Twinkle invites unseasoned (I don't want to say ignorant) Recent changes patrollers (you know "This user fights vandalism to the death blah blah blah") to make. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • As far as I am aware, if you have the "rollback" userright, Twinkle will take advantage of it. But if you lack the userright, it uses a more cumbersome process to achieve the same result.--v/r - TP 15:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Maybe only trusted users/rollbackers should be allowed to leave uw-vandal templates. If the crusaders had to type their warnings by hand (or even type in the code for the template) they'd quickly find other things to do. You know, occasionally I slum as an IP and it's shocking to see how quickly and easily even somewhat experienced users cry "vandalism". I could show you a few pages full of warnings, but I don't wish to give away my secret identity/ies. Not that I have any, of course. Or sock accounts--I don't have those either. I'm also not a spy, and there is no conspiracy. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Using technical rollbacks for edits that are not vandalism would result in the bit being removed. I don't see why we have an automated tool that basically allows the same result to occur.  little green rosetta(talk)
        central scrutinizer  16:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Right right, is that what it says to say in the Socking-101 handbook? I hate bringing up old dirt, so I won't share it, but I have a great example of IP-bias that fits in to exactly what you just said.--v/r - TP 16:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, here are the facts: Twinkle's rollback is available to all autoconfirmed users who choose to enable Twinkle. There are two main differences between regular rollback and Twinkle rollback:

1. Twinkle rollback works only from the diff view (and user contributions, for mass reversion of vandalism). So you are forced to review the diff before rolling back. MediaWiki rollback can be invoked straight from the history page.
2. Edit summary prompt is available for AGF and "normal" Twinkle rollback.

Indeed, it is often suggested at WP:RFPERM that users should start with Twinkle rollback before getting MediaWiki rollback. So Twinkle's rollback should not be limited to rollbackers - that would largely defeat the purpose of having the feature to begin with. However, I can see the potential benefits of removing the vandalism option and I welcome input on that issue.

Abuse of Twinkle rollback is something to take up with the users involved, and per the warning on WP:TW, could result in a block. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Technically, number 1 is not true; Twinkle's rollback options also appear on user contribs pages, enabling edits to be rolled back without review. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the main point here is this: Traditional rollback, which does not use the word "vandalism" at any point in its edit summary, is for use only on vandalism. Rollbackers have been de-rollbacked for failure to comply with this rule, and I believe admins have even been desysopped for persistent misuse. Personally, I use a nifty little script that Kipod (whose username is in Hebrew, thus making me too lazy to find it and link to it... kaf-yud-pei-vav-dalid nun-tet-shin, or something like that – my Hebrew's a little shaky) whipped up for me (well, started to whip up for me... I'm about 6 weeks late on my reply to his last comment about developing it. I suck at communication, ok?) that allows me to use custom summaries, and several others exist, but that's just for my own convenience of not having to press "undo". So, I agree that there's no real need to explicitly label reverted edits as vandalism, especially in a counter-vandalism process that in all ways strives to not encourage vandals, but rather to direct them toward the path of righteousness. Having been an avid Twinkle rollbacker before I got old-fashioned rollback rights, my take is this: The conceptual differences between "normal" and vandalism Twinkle rollback are semantic; the functional difference, though, is that their settings can be configured differently. So, drop the "vandalism" rollback, but instead have it as a trichotomy between "rollback (AGF)", "rollback with summary", and "rollback without summary". By default, only AGF rollback wouldn't be marked as minor, meaning that the only difference between the second two is if the user wants to revert in one click or two. This would both clarify the applications of the latter two types, and avoid antogonizing and/or glorifying unhelpful editors. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that making common, standard actions more laborious is the correct way forward. If people are undoing edits with incorrect edit summaries or too aggressively, through whatever means, then educate them. Amalthea 21:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • +1, I was trying to say something similar but couldn't think of how to word it. —Noiratsi (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Analysis

User:TParis was kind enough to provide me with a spreadsheet containing a recent set of 500 Twinkle vandalism reverts (TWV). I went through each of the diffs to determine if the reverts were actually vandalism. My guide was WP:VANDTYPES. The first thing I did was sort the list so that I would be able to remove articles that were edited more than once. I discovered that there were edit wars on these articles and didn't want to have multiple TWV reverts get reported more than once to throw off statistics. After that I visited each diff and it was apparent vandalism, I assigned that diff a score of 1. All questionable TWV diffs I examined further to see if the reverter AGF by following WP:VANDTYPES. If I felt the AGF revert should have been used, I assigned that diff a score of 0. I tried to AGF for the reverter as much as possible, so I often let a questionable diff get scored as vandalism.

Results:

• Out of the 468 unique pages reverted, only 44% of them were "true vandalism" per WP:VANDTYPES.
• I established an error rate of about 15% for my "not vandalism" ratings. So, assuming I'm wrong about 15% of the time when applying WP:VANDTYPES to these diffs, that would raise the 44% to 53%. I doubt I'm off that much, but the community being incorrect about labeling vandalism 53% of the time is still extremely high.
• The 44% number would be even lower (37%) were not a prolific ip editor blocked sooner for repeatedly repeating the word "bacon" on about 30 articles.
• The level of experience for the editors labeling incorrectly varied. Several admins are present on this list.
• Out of the 468 pages, I only one edit that should not have been reverted at all. This was corrected by another user before I could fix this.

Diff's of actual vandalism that made me laugh. Don't judge me
I've no idea what this means, but the prose is nice[1] Juvenile, but still classic[2] Not a fan of information governance[3] Enthusiastic supporter[4] A proposition for an expose[5] Grooming is important to this editor[6] Slugs rights now[7] What's the RGB value of this color?[8]

Please feel free to ask followup questions, but I think this is a good indication that there might be a problem.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the in-depth analysis. However since there seems to be an awful lot of interpretation involved in determining whether an edit lives up to the criteria mentioned in WP:VANDTYPES I don't think your figures can be considered decisive. It would at least be interesting to see the source material used for verification of interpretations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes interpretation is subjective. I'd be happy to share the "not vandalism" list for others to review   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

My proposed course of action would be to simply change the edit summary for vandalism rollback to remove the words "identified as vandalism". That way, editors still have access to the quick rollback function, without being prompted for a summary, but contributions are no longer labelled as vandalism. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the 99% solution. The functionality remains the same without the bite, and the implementation is easy too.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done — This, that and the other (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I just tested this. Looks great.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Remove tags too?

Twinkle can detect when a tag already exists in an article. Is there some way we could add being able to remove tags as well as add them? RJFJR (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It's on our to-do list .. maybe it will happen one day. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Merging tags into multiple tags holder

Sometimes when I tag an article TW uses the multiple tag thing, other times not, even when the multiple thing is ticked. That's ok, maybe it can't recognise some of the tags because they've been deployed by another tool or manually.

Recently I TW tagged an article, single tag. Went back and added a couple more. It neither used the multiple thing, nor (well, obviously) did it consider grouping the existing tag into a multiple thing with the new ones.

So I was wondering about the rules for TW and the multiple tag thing, please? How does it know what to do, and is it reliable (Well, my experience says not, but, well, I've been wrong before!) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle will

• add tags to an article inside {{multiple issues}} when three or more tags are added
• add tags inside {{multiple issues}} when it is present
• replace {{multiple issues}} with the actual tags when less than three tags will be present no it doesn't; that was wishful thinking

Twinkle will not

• group tags already on the article into {{multiple issues}} (this has never been coded - it should probably happen)
• place any of these tags inside {{multiple issues}}, since they don't work there

In your case, you should add all the tags you want in one go. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I should. But I am sometimes a forgetful bunny :) Thanks for helping me to understand what it does today. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

The page protection doesn't load existing protection. For example, if a page is move protected and you want to add semi, if you don't specify move protection again, it removes it. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

What?! I'll have to look into this. Thanks for the report. — This, that and the other (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This should be  fixed now. My apologies. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

TW tab not showing up

The Twinkle tab at the top of my page (near view history, edit etc.) No longer shows up. Anyone else have this problem?

No... have you tried to clear your cache entirely as explained at WP:BYPASS? — This, that and the other (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I might have accidentally deleted the script from my personal scripts when I was trying to delete WikiTrust. never mind, I reverted :) — nerdfighter^(academy) 16:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Adaptation for Wikidata

Because Wikidata's vandalism rate is increasing, I'd like to see how feasible it would be to create a version for warning and blocking vandals on Wikidata. This is the block template and here are our uw- warning templates. We already have a script for it, but deletions can be requested at d:WD:RFD.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Really, Wikidata would need only the "warn" module, and possibly "fluff" (revert/rollback - although maybe not required?). It would be a true return to Twinkle's anti-vandalism roots. The only major work would be to make it fully localisable. I'll take a look. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Logs

The logs contain "notified {{user|" followed by the user name, with incorrect results when the user name contains an equals sign - "{{user|1=" should produce the correct link. Peter James (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Easily fixed. Will do. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done — This, that and the other (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Red/Green Links Gone?

Hello, everyone,

Can someone help me get my red/green/blue links back? I can't seem to get them to appear. These: . Thanks! —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 06:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit: They come and go! I don't understand what the issue is. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 07:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Which browser are you using? — This, that and the other (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Google Chrome, but it does it with Firefox and IE, also. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 21:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Try getting rid of the Twinkle importScript line and the whole TwinkleConfig block from your User:Duncan/monobook.js. (Also while you're there, try getting rid of the three lines related to Friendly in the middle, since they don't do anything anymore.) Then enable Twinkle as a gadget from your preferences, and go to WP:TWPREFS to re-establish any customised preferences you may have had. — This, that and the other (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems to work thus far!! Thanks so much! —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 02:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle tab doesn't show up when I wheel click

I do not remember having this problem before. I use Firefox 19.0. If I "wheel click" on several pages to open them in new tabs (e.g. I'm looking at a list of images and I want to open each image in a separate tab to review it for possible deletion), the Twinkle tab does not show up unless I immediately click on the newly opened tab (which defeats the purpose of opening up a bunch of tabs). I did not used to have this problem in the distant past, but it's probably been awhile since I have tried. --B (talk)

Works fine for me, on Firefox 19.0 for Windows. I'm not really sure what we can do. You could try seeing if any errors show up in the error console (WP:JSERROR), but I doubt that will help. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Can we make sure that we are both trying the same exercise just to make sure that your's is a valid test? Please wheel-click on Special:Random/File 10 times in rapid succession (ie, not waiting for one click to load before wheel clicking again). When I do that, none of them gets the Twinkle tab. I tried the error console as you suggested and I get hoards of warnings, but no errors. I have, in my User:B/vector.js file, a bunch of links that I add to my toolbox. Could that somehow be conflicting with Twinkle? --B (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I did exactly the exercise you suggested, and it works fine for me on Firefox 19.0.2 (newest version released yesterday). Your code to add toolbox links is unnecessarily complicated, though; why not just use the ResourceLoader mw.util.addPortletLink() function? The order of parameters is the same, so it's easy to convert, and you'll have less code in your vector.js. jcgoble3 (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Same here. I obviously have to wait for the green "throbber" to stop spinning before I see Twinkle, but that is unavoidable.

I suggest you remove the Twinkle line from your vector.js file, and instead enable Twinkle as a gadget. As you can see from the section above, including Twinkle the "old-fashioned" way can sometimes cause loading issues. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have the same problem with FireFox 19 for Mac. --JetBlast (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I notice you also call the Twinkle scripts from your vector.js. Could you try removing it and activating the gadget, as was suggested above? Then bypass your browser cache, for good measure, and try again, please.
Amalthea 13:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement notice bug

When I use Twinkle to add a block notice to a user's talk page using the entry "Arbitration enforcement block", it allows me to put in the name of the article in the "Linked article" text box. However, the added notice does not include the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The linked article will only show up when you put in a custom "reason". This is the way the template {{uw-aeblock}} has been written (nothing really to do with Twinkle). I'm not keen on messing with that template, so you might want to ask on the template's talk page. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to mess with the template, but the rather spare documentation of the template doesn't say that. I realize that Twinkle can't change the template, but can't it block the linked article text box if I don't fill in the "for" text box (that equates to a custom reason, right?)? The whole thing is weird. I'll start a topic on the template talk page and see how far I get. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

window/tab anomaly with users, warning, reversions and stuff

In Safari on a Mac. Not tried other browsers.

Having reverted an edit and arrived in a user's talk page in a new window/tab, I often look at the user's contributions. I stay in the new winder/tab that has been opened. If I open a diff in that tab and attempt a reversion, Twinkle doesn't enjoy it at all. The diff vanishes and the user's talk page appears. No reversion happens.

I suspect it may be to do with Twinkle opening things in a named window or tab rather than a new window or tab?

Process to replicate:

1. Find vandalism (or AGF stuff)
2. Revert
3. In the user talk tab that opens unto you, follow user contributions (usual in the case of vandalism), whether you warn user or not
4. Find a diff that requires reversion in this tab
5. Attempt reversion
6. Watch it all not quite work as one might wish

Hope that helps. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll fix this. Thanks for the report. I don't like this aspect of Twinkle (pop-up windows are so '90s), but I think a lot of users have grown accustomed to it! — This, that and the other (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's probably as simple as target="_blank" instead of a named target. Or I hope it is. It is a useful attribute to be able to talk to the relevant editor easily, so if you can think of a better way now might be a fun time to do it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. However you will notice that the default setting is described in WP:TWPREFS as to open talk pages "in a window, replacing other user talks". So we have to keep the named target, but we will use _blank if we are already in the named window. Hope that makes sense. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully  fixed. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Not had occasion to use it yet, but I am sure when you say it is fixed that it is fixed :) The world bows and thanks you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

New warning for Twinkle

Could this be an option added to the Twinkle warnings panel:

You have been reported to Administrator's intervention against vandalism.
Thanks! — nerdfighter 19:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is that a useful notice to leave? Amalthea 23:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

So if the report goes stale, future reverters/warners will have that for reference. — nerdfighter 23:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, but presumably one already left one or more warnings for actual problematic edits that are available for future reference? Amalthea 23:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well if the report truned stale and this was posted at AIV:

Report was good at the time, but is now stale. (X since last edit) Re-report if this user resumes vandalising.

The notice would be helpful for future reference. — nerdfighter 00:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

From experience generally warnings/edit history are enough to determine the sequence of events/the next course of action. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

uw-disruptive missing

they're supposedly in twinkle, but I can't find them. I often run into situations where a vandal tag is not appropriate, and want to use disruptive. I had to manually add them in. Aunva6 (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Who tweaked merging?

I don't know if it was a direct response to my comment at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 30#Merging, but someone made it much easier to do a properly formatted merge, and possible to do so in one swoop. Does anyone know who did that? I'd like to show him or her my appreciation. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It was me, and I did it in response to regular requests over the years. The request #Merge automation (soon to be at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 30#Merge automation) was the last straw... since it was accompanied by a nice little outline of exactly what I needed to do (really useful for someone scatter-brained like me), it made me finally go and write the code! Does the feature work well for you? — This, that and the other (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I started to propose a merge, but I changed my mind. I was just delighted to see fields for the other article and a rationale. When a rationale is provided, does it get placed into a standardized talk section, and do {{merge to}} and {{merge from}} link to that discussion? That would be optimal. If not, I hope I don't sound too picky here. This is a great improvement already. Thank you! --BDD (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

it's been a while, but I think they do. I used it to merge a page once, sometime last month... Aunva6 (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the "TW" supposed to be click-able?

When I click the "TW" nothing happens even though it looks like a link. Is it suppose to take me to this project page? I use the default Vector skin. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't. That's the standard convention, just below it has some tasks which can be performed if necessary. TBrandley ^(review) 22:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Star, confusing to newbies

There is a star at the top of my screen. I know what it does, but why is it there to confuse newcomers? Why not a word, like "Watch" and "Unwatch"? GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the star isn't part of Twinkle. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

it's only in the default skin. if you go to preferences --> appearance, and select monobook, I know for sure that that one says watch/unwatch. Aunva6 (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary broken

At User talk:177.158.134.38 Twinkle left the edit summary "undefined on Portal:Current events/2013 March 18. (TW)" -- John of Reading (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

We're aware. I'm awaiting Amalthea's assistance to fix this. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've re-synced earlier today, should hopefully work again. Amalthea 12:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's working now. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Identified as vandalism" text

Hi, I seem to recall when I'd revert vandalism in the past by clicking on the red vandalism link, the page would revert to the last known page, and the edit summary would reflect the reason for the change, a la "Reverted 2 edits by FOO (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by BAR." Now when I revert vandalism, the edit summary reads "Reverted 2 edits by FOO (talk) to last revision by BAR." I can't find the intuitive toggle-switch that would include the "identified as vandalism" text in Twinkle Preferences. Might someone please point me in the right direction? Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No such switch. Text was removed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. If the vandalism tool no longer mentions vandalism in the edit summary, is there any reason to use the tool instead of the rollback link, which allows for the inclusion of a reason? I like to leave more information to other editors rather than less. And apologies if you don't know or if you've no opinion. I've not had much success finding the discussion that addressed this.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion was at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 30#Please remove the "vandalism" summary. Amalthea 19:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm up to speed now.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know, that I have begun using the middle link for vandalism and typing in a manual edit summary "identified as vandalism", because removing the automatic edit summary makes it extremely hard to analyze contributions and article histories and differentiate vandalism from other types of reverts. And yes, I know the analysis said that it was being misused, but that was a social problem, that should have had other solutions. Elizium23 (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Good note, I think I'll do that. Unless there's some behind-the-scenes/admin-level relevance, why even have a vandalism rollback anymore? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking through the code, the main difference between the second and third button is when the "vandal" has made more edits by the time you click the rollback button. If you click the second button, the revert is cancelled (you need to look at the history again); if the third, the revert happens anyway (the new edits are assumed to be vandalism as well even though you haven't seen them). The three buttons also have their own sets of tickboxes in the preferences. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback bug

As someone who is hesitant to use the Teahouse scripts, I use the Twinkle easy talkback method for adding a Teahouse talkback. I am faced with a problem: when you add Teahouse talkback from Twinkle, there is no header, either "Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!" or "Your Teahouse question has been answered". This leaves four options:

1. Add the Teahouse scripts, which, as I said, I am hesitant to do
2. Do it the old-fashioned way with copy-and-paste
3. Add another edit just to give it a header
4. Leave it aggravatingly as-is

I don't know how many people use Twinkle for Teahouse talkback, but I hope I'm not the only one (if I was, why was it added without my special request?) Anyway, I'm just calling this to the attention of someone who knows coding and can fix it. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Which header would you prefer? — This, that and the other (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer "Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!" because sometimes we're not just answering a question. Thank you in advance. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 00:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. As for your question "why was it added without my special request?", such requests are only one way for things to make their way into Twinkle... if I see something uncontroversial I think should be in Twinkle, I will often just go ahead and add it without any discussion. That was the case here (although, as you have discovered, I didn't do it very well, and will fix it soon). — This, that and the other (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean that as an actual question. What I was saying was that I couldn't possibly be the only one using Twinkle for Teahouse talkback because it had been created without my request for it, and so someone else must have wanted it. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 19:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, give us devs some kind of credit for being open-minded: we can think an idea is a good one even if we don't personally use/want it. ;) Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

CSD log deleting itself

The following was posted on the Help Desk. I haven't seen this before; has anyone else?

My CSD log keeps auto deleting large chunks of itself, how can I solve this glitch? Valenciano (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

--Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We hear about this issue from time to time; however Twinkle can't do much about it – it's some sort of transmission error, either between the user's computer and the server, or between the different servers running Wikipedia. The only solution at the moment, unfortunately, is to revert the edit manually. Or perhaps to trim the size of your CSD log, perhaps by archiving old entries - as I see you have done. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Restrict TW rollback feature

Shouldn't the twinkle rollback feature only be available to those with the rollback right? Sorry, because issue has probably been raised before. — nerdfighter 01:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

it just doesn't work for non-rollbackers. I still like the restore button, which is a bit klutzier than rollback I think, but it works for most vandalism. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

of course it works. you're using it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I have argued before that it would be pointless to restrict Twinkle rollback to rollbackers. It's probably somewhere in archive 30, or maybe 29, of this page ... I don't have time to find it now. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussions

As a follow up to #Who tweaked merging? above, I've just used Twinkle to propose a merge and it went very well. The only tweaks I'd suggest are placing the discussion on the destination page (I assume it's set to go on whichever article is originally tagged) and making the default section heading "Merger proposal" (although the ability to customize the section heading would be nice too). Both of these are in line with documentation at Wikipedia:Merging. This is not a complaint by any means. Yet again, Twinkle has made a complex process simple. --BDD (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

As an Australian, I tend to think of the term "merger" as referring to a merge of two companies. I would use the term "merge" as a noun to represent a specific instance of merging - for instance, "how to propose a merge"/"This merge shouldn't go ahead". Is that just my regional bias? Should Twinkle be using the term "merger" instead?

As for placing the discussion on the destination page, that is fine (only the logic for {{merge to}} would need to be changed). However, with {{merge}}, there is no clear destination, so I suppose the behavior should be left as is for that tag. — This, that and the other (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle not patrolling when pages are tagged for speedy deletion or proposed deletion

So for some time now, I've noticed that Twinkle, for some reason, no longer automatically patrol articles when they are tagged for deletion. This can get confusing for new page patrollers, because it wouldn't be obvious which articles have already been tagged or not. Can this be fixed? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed this too, though I think it might be working intermittently. I still see a "marking page as patrolled" line in the box, though. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Both of you are tagging pages after clicking on them from new page patrol or recent changes patrol, right? If not, there is no way for Twinkle to patrol it (there's a technical reason – the link from NPP and RCP contains a special patrol code). The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 02:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It worked fine for me when I tested it. Trouble is, NPPers are too good nowadays... it's hard to find bad new articles that haven't already been patrolled. I'll have to check out trusty old File talk - there's usually lots of crap there to tag with G2. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No, working fine for me in Firefox. What browser are you guys using? How often do you see this problem? Any JavaScript errors? — This, that and the other (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Not marked as patrolled.

"Marking as patrolled".

I use Chrome 25.0.1364.173 on an Alex-series Chromebook. Here are some screenshots I took of Twinkle saying it was marking the page as patrolled, and it still not being patrolled when I clicked on the link again from NewPages. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen that behavior before. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That's... weird. But perhaps not as weird as the Heiderich family and their twenty-four cats. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Try these debugging steps:

1. On a speedy deletion candidate page that you reached via NewPages, press F12, change to the Network tab, click "XHR" at the bottom, and press F5.
2. Click on the gray circle at the bottom so it turns red.
3. Carry out your speedy deletion using Twinkle.
4. Once the patrol step is complete, you will see an entry (in the bottom panel) for "index.php?title=" plus the title of the current page: click on this.
5. Switch to the "Preview" tab. When I did this, I saw a message informing me that the page had been successfully marked as patrolled. But I guess you are not seeing that... tell me what you get? Also check the "Response" tab to see if there is anything meaningful there?

— This, that and the other (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Please allow expeditious rollback of bots

Although edits like [9] aren't technically vandalism, reversion using the "vandalism" button is certainly appropriate, and should perhaps at least be allowed after an "are you sure" dialog. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The "vandalism" summary was just removed based on the overall consensus. TBrandley 02:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What I mean is that TW still has a "vandalism" rollback button, and using this against a "whitelisted" bot fails to produce any rollback at all. In cases like above, we actually want it to. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism rollback is designed to be identical to MediaWiki rollback, except for an improved edit summary and the whitelisted bot feature. Basically, the idea is, if a vandal leaves a stupid talk page comment and then SineBot comes along and signs it, you can still use Twinkle rollback to remove both the vandal's edits and SineBot's signature with the one click.

The real question here is, should ClueBot NG actually be on the whitelist? I don't think it should be. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

no, cluebot has been known to make errors, so being able to rollback is needed. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I just ran into a false positive with ClueBot NG earlier today.[10] The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 16:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Whose has access to remove ClueBot NG from the whitelist? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

TTO has already removed the bot from the whitelist; we are now just pending a sync to the wiki. —mc10 (t/c) 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Should be  Done now. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

G13

[11] Addition of G13 to deletion please. Thanks -- KTC (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

But see Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Clarification. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of that, G13 is now available in Twinkle. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Feature request: have the top "TW" link bring you to Wikipedia:Twinkle, or at least add rollover text

I enabled Twinkle a while back, but never used it. Today I re-noticed the "TW" menu, and went down its capabilities one by one, looking at the rollover text. The text was clear, but certainly not a complete description of what would happen. Then I went to the top, but it had no text, so I couldn't find out just what this all was. Finally I went to my Preferences, and saw that Twinkle was enabled, and figured it out.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's done this, so I have two suggestions:

1. Have the "TW" at the top of the menu link to Wikipedia:Twinkle

1. Add a rollover tooltip to the "TW" item at the top of the menu which says something like "This is the Twinkle tool menu; for more information, click"

Either would help a great deal, but I think both should be done. Thanks, Dan Griscom (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to make the TW in the menu link to WP:TW - I think it would result in a lot of accidental visits to the page. I can see that a tooltip on the text "TW" that simply says "Twinkle" could be useful to help users identify the tool, but a link would in my view be superfluous.

Moreover, if you click any of the items in the TW menu (other than "last"), you will be presented with a window that clearly identifies itself as Twinkle and contains a link to "Twinkle help" (WP:TW/DOC). — This, that and the other (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. As a member of the Great Confused, I didn't want to click on any of the "action" links because I thought it would suddenly take an action (with me being responsible). So, having that intermediate window present doesn't solve the problem. And, what would people expect when they clicked the "TW"? If they read the "Twinkle" tooltip, then they'd get exactly what they expected. If they didn't see/read the tooltip, and they knew what Twinkle was, they certainly wouldn't be surprised to be taken to the Twinkle page. If they even didn't know what Twinkle was, then surely they'd know that clicking on a link will take them to somewhere related to the link: how would that be a problem? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the rollover/tooltip/popup idea. I think that the TW should link to the Twinkle preferences popup to allow users to quickly modify their twinkles settings. Technical 13 (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense to provide a link to the Twinkle preferences page, but the "TW" shouldn't be the way to get there: it's not discoverable enough. Please see the thread below. Unforgettableid (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Feature request: add a link to the preferences page

Thank you very much for all your work on Twinkle: it's a very useful too. I wonder if you could please add a "Prefs" link to the Twinkle menu, which will take me to the Twinkle preferences page? This would make the preferences page more discoverable. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"Tag" suggestions

1. Offer little "ui-icon-help" (?) with summaries of what the template does for each of the templates listed on the tag popup.

   Why? Are the existing descriptions not enough? — This, that and the other (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   Most of them are; although, they could use some keyword linking (that opens in a new tab), but some of the descriptions in-line make it more confusing. Technical 13 (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   It might be nice to have each tag entry link somehow to the documentation page for that template. Having said that, the template doc pages are generally a bit of a mess. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

2. Offer a drop-down for {{cleanup}} with some common cleanup reasons or the option to type their own reason.
   • Like what was done for the {{notability}} checkbox.

   Why? There is already a reason prompt, and common cleanup reasons should be split off into new maintenance tags (or just use a relevant existing tag). — This, that and the other (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   This is true; although, I don't like the way the reason prompt isn't movable to see what is behind it (I'm a chronic "what was I going to say?" type person). Does Twinkle have a log someplace so that frequently used reasons can be noticed and an appropriate new tag made? Technical 13 (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

3. Change the check-boxes for the "Style of writing" and "Sense (or lack thereof)" sections to radio buttons, to prevent redundant issues.
   • Add a "No styling issues" that is set as default.

   Radio buttons are too complicated to implement for too little benefit. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   I disagree, I think that radio buttons are a great idea in these circumstances. Had I not taken the time to fully read and have an interest in the way that {{Multiple issues}} works, I would not have known about avoiding redundant issues and could likely have checked them all because they do apply. I've seen pages where redundancy in tagging has been done, and I have cleaned it up. This might reduce that. There could be an additional mode added to the "alphabetically, categorically, assisted mode (or newbie mode or something) so that people that like the current ways don't have to be required to be helped. Technical 13 (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   Maybe a good idea. Redundant tags are a problem, and I welcome other suggestions for a solution. But radio buttons for a handful of tags are too complicated to implement, for (I still believe) marginal benefit. You'd have to write the code that correctly populates the form with radio buttons in the right places, detects whether a tag is already present on a page, chooses the appropriate radio button, removes the existing tag(s) if no longer relevant (remembering to handle the old {{multiple issues}} syntax), applies the new tag in its place, and of course continues with the normal business of the tag module. And also figure out how to handle alphabetical mode, and to present a clean, understandable, simple UI in categorical mode. Not something I plan to do, quite frankly. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

4. Offer a drop-down for {{expert-subject}} with a list of WikiProjects that may be able to help.
   • Like what was done for the {{notability}} checkbox.
   • The list of wiki projects could possibly be populated from Category:WikiProjects.
   • Then Twinkle could post something to a corresponding WikiProject page notifying them that there are articles that may require their attention.

   There are too many WikiProjects out there to make this practical. Additionally, I don't see why you would need to post to a WikiProject talk page when a category (e.g. Category:Dance articles needing expert attention) is already applied to pages tagged with {{expert-subject}}. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   I wasn't aware that template added it to a category, and I'm a member of a couple WikiProjects... Have all of the WikiProjects recently been re-informed about this? How does the template handle things like case, spelling, and punctuation? would it not make more sense to pull a list of "active" WPs and show the list to prevent or at least greatly reduce tagger errors? Technical 13 (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   Well, the categories are there; I suggest WikiProjects should use them. It's not Twinkle's fault that people don't know about them. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

5. {{COI}} suggested changes discussed here, here, and lastly here.

   Will look at this later. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   There is merit in this, though I have some concerns about a user self tagging that they have an interest in an article and then feeling that they have carte blanche to add their own spin to it. Care is required. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

6. Have Twinkle scan for "peacock terms" and "weasel words" then automatically check the {{peacock}} and/or {{weasel}} boxes as is appropriate.

   Too auto-magic. Twinkle users can work these things out for themselves, in general. Also, what if peacock/weasel words were in a quote or proper name? — This, that and the other (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   The reason I suggested this one is because I'm still not exactly sure what might qualify as "peacock terms" or "weasel words" and have avoided using the templates because of it. This one in particular might benefit from suggestion #1. Technical 13 (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   As I've said on previous occasions, Twinkle is not here to babysit users. If you are not aware of the purpose of a template, you should look it up. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

7. Make the "Links" section a little more automatic.
   • Move {{orphan}} to the top of the "By category" list for this section.

   Tags are already in alphabetical order within each group, and to disrupt this for a single group would be confusing. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   I realize this, but the user has not selected the "alphabetically" and perhaps all of the sections should be listed in order of severity where it applies? If you had four sections: "A-F", "G-L", "M-R", and "1-6", you wouldn't order "1-6" as "5, 4, 1, 6, 3, 2" would you? (alphabetically, Five, Four, One, Six, Three, Two) I think scale of level where available is less confusing than alphabetically. Technical 13 (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   Alphabetical is more consistent, objective, and clear. "Severity" is highly subjective, and not at all obvious (the ordering would probably seem quite mysterious to a casual observer). — This, that and the other (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   • Check the "What links here" for the page (probably an API call?) and if there are no non-redirecting pages in (article), automatically check the {{orphan}} box.

   This one is interesting. Although perhaps bots should be doing this work, rather than having it backdoored in through Twinkle. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   If it was properly handled by a bot, it probably would no longer need to be in Twinkle. Technical 13 (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   Why not? — This, that and the other (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   • Order the other three as {{dead end}}, {{underlinked}}, then {{overlinked}} and change their boxes to radio buttons.

   As above, no radio buttons. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   • Add a "No linking issues" that is set as default unless:
   • A scan for links on the page reveals there are none, then set the {{dead end}} box default.
   • A scan for links on the page reveals the page is mostly links (threshold perhaps of 65%?), then set the {{overlinked}} box default.

   Dead end one is interesting. (Again, perhaps the domain of bots.) But overlinking is usually a very obvious problem, and again, Twinkle users can work it out for themselves. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   Dead end is intuitive, saves having to move the Twinkle box once it loads to see if there where any links. Overlinking was, heck - why not ask while we are at it. Technical 13 (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

8. Scan for bare URLs as references and check {{linkrot}} if they exist.

   This one's definitely the domain of bots, if it is to be done at all. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

9. Check to see if page is categorized and if not then check {{uncategorized}} by default.

   Don't bots already do this? — This, that and the other (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   (Following statement may come off as defensive, not meant to be): If they do, then why is it listed on Twinkle's tagging function? It just adds one more thing people don't need, and may misuse. Technical 13 (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

   Again, why not? Bots aren't perfect - they die occasionally, for example. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I know it is a long list of suggestions for that one purpose, but I think they would all be useful. Please feel free to pick and choose as I don't feel it needs to be an all other nothing suggestion and would be happy to see any of these suggestions implemented. Technical 13 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is quite a lot to take in as a set of enhancements. I think there are several that fall into the "Of course we should do that if it can be done" category, and I suspect our Twinkle-eers will grab them and do them in an eyeblink. Might I prevail on them to say which they think further discussion would be beneficial on and which are simply so straightforward that they have them in plan already? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've commented on all but COI. T13, you should keep in mind that Twinkle needs to remain an easily comprehensible and predictable piece of software. The amount of options presented to the user should not be excessive or overwhelming (peppering the tag window with redundant help-tips seems excessive to me). Moreover, adding weird quirks like tags automatically choosing themselves is quite unsettling from a user's point of view. The non-standard behaviour on the CSD radio buttons was removed because it was impossible to predict, and people were caught out by it the first time they tested out CSD. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

These suggestions are from me, a relatively new user, that thinks that it would be more easily comprehensible and predictability is less of an issue because as a newer user, I don't have preset expectations. I have to catch a bus, but will expand shortly. Technical 13 (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm at school for the duration of the day and have time to finish responding. I think that at one time, most users would agree with you that automatic selection of checkboxes and whatnot might be seen as unsettling. However, I think that times have been changing and more automation is, if not expected, at least accepted for what it is by the general user. I think that even well versed Twinkle users would appreciate not having to look for this or that anymore because Twinkle automatically checks for them. The only issue with this automation, that I expect someone to come out with is, "What about false positives?" and "Won't that make users of Twinkle less observant and more likely to miss things?" because those are the circular kinds of questions that get asked when automation is suggested. My response to that is that the ability to change something that Twinkle automatically did would still be fully available, so human error is the only problem, and those problems already exist. Automating things would hopefully reduce this human error, so I see it as a good thing. Technical 13 (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded by adding more automation into Twinkle, especially the tag module. Here's my underlying view: if tags should be applied in a well-defined, objective set of circumstances, then do it by bot. Otherwise, let humans do it. I don't want to tread into the in-between gray area of "pseudo-intelligent" scripts that pretend to be "smartly" making choices for the user, since I think many (most?) of Twinkle's users would be annoyed by such behaviour. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Add WP:RPP to TB "Noticeboards"

I would like to see WP:RPP added to the TB "Noticeboards" list. Technical 13 (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible bug with continued vandalism rollback when edit conflicted?

I saw this diff from a repeat vandal and rolled back. Twinkle gave me the message "Edit conflict, same author, assuming further vandalism, rolling back" yet it didn't do this – it simply rolled back the first edit. The second vandalism change (no change to article size) slipped through.

• Twinkle bug?
• Should Twinkle have rolled both back, or do I need to manually check in future?

Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle should do what it says, and say what it does; if it doesn't, then something is wrong with Twinkle. I assume you clicked the red "vandalism" rollback link? I'll look into this further. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple CSD criteria and talk notifications

Requested CSD under both A2 and A10; user talk notification for A10 didn't use the article name. – 29611670.x (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This should be easily fixed; thanks for the notice. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

More logs?

Can Twinkle users get more automated logs for non-admin users. Something like what I've manually created for myself. User:Technical 13/Logs/RPP and User:Technical 13/Logs/Warn so far. I will likely makes some others as well

Sure, here you go. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine the warning logs would be useful. Why would anyone even want that? Every time you revert someone the total edit count would increase needlessly by 50%. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It makes it easier to remember who I've warned before so that I more readily know if it is appropriate to use a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th level of a multilevel warning. Twinkle could even check this log page and tell me that I have warned this person X times before, but I'm just asking for the logs at this point. Technical 13 (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to check the user's talk page history for that, rather than a log; that way, you'd consider other warnings from everyone, not just yourself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I had considered that as well, which is why I'm only asking for the log page and not any automation that reminds me I've warned them based on said log. The log page also offers me a way to "keep tabs on" editors I have warned without being forced to watch their talk pages for other notices. If you go to User:Technical 13/Logs You'll see that at some point I would also like to see ARV and XfD logs as well. It is a useful log to help keep all of those things organized so I can quickly check up on something I've reported. If I must continue to do them manually for now I will. I may also write a script I can run that will collect and update those logs for me automatically. Technical 13 (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason CSD and PROD logs exist is because non-admins may otherwise have no record of these actions (since they do not show up in regular contributions). To track your usage of other tools, consider using a contribution history search tool on Toolserver to search for the distinctive phrases Twinkle uses in its edit summary. For example, [12]. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

?? I'm not sure what you are saying tt&to, I can see all of them in my contributions for CSDs and PRODs. I was just hoping to get more of my logs automatically generated because it makes keeping track of things so much easier (User:Anomie/linkclassifier help tremendously with this) Technical 13 (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you can't see a page in your contributions once it has been deleted - you can only see a page you tagged with CSD or PROD if (a) the page has not yet been deleted, or (b) if the CSD/PROD was declined. (You may be able to see the notification to the user's talk page, but this does not occur for all CSD criteria, and you can turn it off on a case-by-case basis.) The CSD/PROD logs are mainly there to provide information that users would otherwise lack. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandals can use twinkle?

Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis#Current_activities says: Sometimes he uses applications such as Twinkle. even though he is a banned editor and only uses AnonIPs to revert repeatedly the same material. (I have seen him do it less frequently with new accounts as well, but those are usually blocked quickly.) So is this a misstatement I should correct while correcting that page?

Anyway, I guess I'm going to have to learn twinkle to undo his vandalism. I assume it's faster than just going in and manually undoing one at a time through the diffs page. CarolMooreDC🗽

Twinkle is just a single long Javascript plugin, therefore anyone can use it even if they have 0 edits. Technically Ip's can use it too but it's difficult and anyone wanting to cause damage would probably be better off just making an account. If youre going to be doing a lot of reverting you might be better off using rollback instead of Twinkle, as it is a lot more efficient. —Soap— 23:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Whatever is easiest and involves the fewest clicks. CarolMooreDC🗽 01:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

AN3 reports

AN3 reports might be the most cumbersome reports to make on Wikipedia. Is there any chance that it could be made possible to report an editor at AN3 using Twinkle? Ryan Vesey 16:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I have never even visited AN3, let alone tried to make a request! Having a look, though, I see what you mean. I'll consider working on this for the ARV module, although I can't promise anything sugary (you'll probably still have to copy/paste the diff links). — This, that and the other (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should do some work here instead of having tto doing everything :) _→AzaToth 12:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Following my investigation, I've concluded following data most be present:

• Offenders username
• Page in question
• diffs to offenses
• diff to warning of offense
• diff to resolution discussion

The simple way is just to add fields for all the diff information and have users manually copy and paste urls or diff id's. But it's also possible to only have initial input of offenders username and page and have the script lookup edits made by offender on page, edits made by reporting user to offenders talk page, and edits made by reporting user to talk page, and create a checkbox list for user to check.

Dunno which way is best. _→AzaToth 13:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Webreflinks

Hi, It would be really handy to integrate the Webreflinks tool into. Twinkle. Will save bags of time :) Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Updated {{Uw-joke3}}, {{Uw-joke4}}, and {{Uw-joke4im}}

I have updated {{Uw-joke3}} and {{Uw-joke4}} so that they use the {{Uw3}} and {{Uw4}} templates. I have also updated {{Uw-joke4im}} to match the level 3 and 4 warning templates. —DragonLord^{(talk/contribs)} 06:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a Berman Sock

Hi TW,

I just updated a couple of links to Berman's site. He removed a couple of pages where he tells the story about the murder he committed and got away with an insanity plea. He re-posted the pages where he brags about his exploits, but that was enough to make the links invalid. I used a name similar to one of his socks just to annoy him. Check the links, they lead to a missing pages. Can you revert your change? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodrigoalvesnetII (talk • contribs) 22:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle is merely a tool used by other editors to help them maintain Wikipedia. If you have concerns about edits made using Twinkle, you should contact the user who carried out the edits in question. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Tagging bug

As can be seen on List of Little Einsteins episodes, Twinkle does not recognize {{grammar}} and {{copy edit}} as being the same although the output clearly is the same. Technical 13 (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, I missed this post! It is a well-known issue with the tag module that template redirects are not recognised. Two solutions have been proposed:

• Keep a hard-coded list of relevant template redirects in the Twinkle code (fast, but hard to maintain and keep up-to-date).
• Run an API request on each template found in the first $x$ bytes of the to figure out where it redirects to (time- and bandwidth-consuming).

If tag removal functionality is ever implemented into Twinkle (per issue 13), this bug will need to be fixed at the same time. Until then, a fix is probably not forthcoming. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Deployment of template:Not English

{{Not English}} refers to "this article's entry" on a discussion page. Twinkle does not appear to add a discussion there. Should dialogue be created and the discussion page entry be created? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That is because the bottom half of that box states:

If you have just labeled this page as needing translation, please add
{{subst:Needtrans|pg = Not English |Language = unknown |Comments = }} ~~~~
to the bottom of this section of Pages needing translation into English.

In other words, it expects the user that places the template on the page to add that to the page. I'm not sure if this shows if encapsulated inside of {{Multiple issues}}. I'm also not sure why Twinkle doesn't do it automatically. Technical 13 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that what you have quoted is a cause and effect disconnect, though I am happy to be corrected. I understand what it says, though use it so rarely that I need to read it each time. My wonder is whether Twinkle should do the remainder (including allowing the person placing the label to enter a valid rationale) on the user's behalf. Twinkle has so much good magic inside it created by our diligent Twinkle Elves that I wonder if they were aware that this was an area where more magic dust might be sprinkled. 16:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this might be a good place to sprinkle some magic pixie dust. My concern is that the tag module might get so full of randomly-scattered pixie dust that it starts to get a bit clogged with spaghetti code (sorry for mixing metaphors). But that's my concern, not yours, and it shouldn't stop something like this from getting coded and eventually appearing in Twinkle. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I would think that, as long as you are diligent in commenting what has been done, you stand a good chance. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've blown out some of the cobwebs from the tag module. I've added the requested functionality to {{not English}} (and, as a bonus, {{rough translation}}). Once it is deployed, you'll also notice that most of the tag-specific "reason" prompts now appear inline (directly under the tag checkbox when you select it). The modifications should appear on-wiki soon. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I send you a packet of magic pixie dust (new, improved model) as a token of my appreciation :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you manage to take care of the #Tagging bug I noted above? :) Technical 13 (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Too new

Enable the disabled features of Twinkle so that too new users can warn, propose deletion, speedy delete, etc. TwinkleUser333 (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, seeing that you proposed Sex-machine for speedy deletion with invalid reasoning, you have given an example of an inexperienced user who shouldn't use Twinkle. You have to learn about speedy deletion by going to WP:CSD and reading the full criteria before you can apply one, just as you have to first learn about what the community considers an inappropriate edit before you can "warn" someone about it, or learn about valid reasons to propose an article for deletion before you do that. Amalthea 11:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Specifying multiple articles to merge creates a huge mess.

I just had to clean up a huge mess... The {{merge}} tagging feature should be disabled on Twinkle until it is fixed. Apparently using Twinkle to merge multiple articles together breaks the {{merge}} template the way that Twinkle currently applies it. See: DVD-R/talk, DVD+R/talk, DVD-RW/talk, and DVD+RW/talk. Technical 13 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting the error. The quick solution is to reject the submission when multiple articles are selected for tag, and a reason is entered. It should happen soon.

Just as an aside, if you call this a "huge mess", you haven't been at Wikipedia long enough to see some really huge messes... — This, that and the other (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, it was a mess. I was exaggerating slightly perhaps because it was taking me multiple edits to clean it up which took some time in of itself. Anyways, thank you for acknowledging and adding it to your list of things to fix. :) Technical 13 (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Rollback and IPv6

I've just used Twinkle rollback on an IPv6's two consecutive edits, and it only rolled back one of the two edits, as seen here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a known issue dependent on the resolution of a MediaWiki bug. It might be possible to work around the issue in Twinkle; I'll think about it. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

stub

I'm often using twinkle and I think it would be very useful to NPP if the stub template was added to the list of templates. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 06:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The strange case of Burning Vision Entertainment

I just tried to use TW to propose this for AfD. I had to go and correct the entire process manually. TW appears to have become confused by a redirected first AfD. It failed to create a new discussion page, preferring instead, the old one, included the old one in the AfD list and the banner on the article page, and told me I had failed.

Two things interest me:

1. That it failed at all
2. That, after failure, it did not unwind that which it had attempted to do

You can probably get the best analysis of what happened by looking at my contribution history. It may be such a convoluted set of circumstances that this proves to be an exception that you will leave alone. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed overhaul of Twinkle warning list

I propose to regroup Twinkle's level 1 user warning templates according to the following structure. (The drop-down menu would include the headings, in the same way as PP/RPP already does). Level 2, 3, 4, and 4im would be regrouped in a similar way.

To make it easier to find the appropriate warning, Twinkle only includes the "best of" WP:UWT. In my opinion, rarely-used warnings should stay out of Twinkle.

The yellow tick Y means the template is to be added to Twinkle.

• Common warnings
  • Y {{uw-vandalism1}}: Vandalism
  • Y {{uw-disruptive1}}: Disruptive editing
    • Added. —mc10 (t/c) 03:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Y {{uw-test1}}: Editing tests
  • Y {{uw-delete1}}: Removal of content, blanking

• Behavior in articles
  • Y {{uw-biog1}}: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons
  • Y {{uw-defam1}}: Addition of defamatory content
  • Y {{uw-error1}}: Introducing deliberate factual errors
  • {{uw-genre1}}: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references
    • How common is this really?
      • Sadly, really, really common. There's a reason why people have anti-genre warrior infoboxes. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Y {{uw-image1}}: Image-related vandalism in articles
  • Y {{uw-joke1}}: Using improper humor in articles
  • Y {{uw-nor1}}: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of source material
  • Y {{uw-notcensored1}}: Censorship of material
    • Template has been renamed from uw-uncen1
  • Y {{uw-own1}}: Ownership of articles
  • Y {{uw-tdel1}}: Removal of maintenance templates
  • Y {{uw-unsourced1}}: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material

• File namespace
  • N {{uw-ics1}}: Uploading files missing copyright status
    • Is this ever used? Seems redundant to {{di-no license-notice}}
  • Y {{uw-upload1}}: Uploading unencyclopedic images

• Behavior towards other editors
  • Y {{uw-agf1}}: Not assuming good faith
  • Y {{uw-npa1}}: Personal attack directed at a specific editor
  • Y {{uw-tempabuse1}}: Improper use of warning or blocking template

• Promotions and spam
  • Y {{uw-advert1}}: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion
  • Y {{uw-npov1}}: Not adhering to neutral point of view
  • Y {{uw-spam1}}: Adding spam links
  • Would it be worth adding {{uw-fringe1}}?

• Removal of deletion tags
  • Y {{uw-afd1}}: Removing {{afd}} templates
  • Y {{uw-idt1}}: Removing file deletion tags
  • Y {{uw-speedy1}}: Removing speedy deletion tags
  • Y {{uw-blpprod1}}: Removing {{blp prod}} templates

• Other
  • Y {{uw-chat1}}: Using talk page as forum
  • Y {{uw-create1}}: Creating inappropriate pages
  • Y {{uw-mos1}}: Manual of style
  • Y {{uw-move1}}: Page moves against naming conventions or consensus
  • Y {{uw-tpv1}}: Refactoring others' talk page comments
  • {{uw-af1}}: Inappropriate feedback through the Article Feedback Tool
    • Perhaps no longer required?
  • N {{uw-redirect1}}: Creating malicious redirects

Please offer your feedback and suggestions. In particular, please suggest any additional tags you might like on the list. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, while you're overhauling the warnings, absolutely the most useful change would be to allow users to customize which warnings are available to them through Twinkle, similar to the already-existing provision for custom welcomes. For example, I've issued my share of {{uw-tpv1}}s, but if others don't use it, there's no reason for the extra clutter. That's just one tiny example. Everyone should have the capability to add whatever warnings they want in their personal Twinkle settings. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• I see nothing to do with COI here and I believe it ought to be present (though I appreciate you might be looking at that later in a separate list). I was going to suggest shortly that when a COI warning is applied to a user that {{Connected contributor}} might be applied (optionally, naturally) to relevant articles. I'm also pretty sure I've warned a user about removal of file deletion tags {{uw-idt1}}. It is something that can happen when combatting a spammer who is spamming his own business. One problem then is that it can enrage the spamming editor. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see use for the idt tag. I think it looks good, but a COI section would be useful. perhaps separate versions for autoconf, rollback, and admin perms? it can get a little cluttered with thing I can't use sometimes. Aunva6 (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've revised the list. Is there an existing set of level-based warnings for COI? I think we have some COI-related single-issue notices/warnings already, and if the level-based warnings don't exist we can't add them to Twinkle :)

Custom warnings are a bit harder to implement than custom welcomes, but it is probably do-able. I'll look into it.

Anyone got opinions on ics, genre, af, fringe, and redirect? — This, that and the other (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the custom warnings. Sorry to create more work for you. All of your efforts in improving and maintaining Twinkle are greatly appreciated! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

isn't ics already covered by a bot? and beyond that, don't articles with miossing/incorrect copyright info already CSD-able? at least, that's usually what I do, if the bot doesn't catch it first. Aunva6 (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any bot covering what ics does and I actually do use the ics warnings when it appears the user has been continuing the covered behavior. Eeekster (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

true. I can see some good use, such as if someone falsely uploads under a CC license, claiming it's their work. seen it on commons before. Aunva6 (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is what I came up with: Media:Proposed Twinkle warnings level 1 to 4im.png (you will probably need to zoom in). I am eager to hear feedback on this list. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

looks good. Aunva6 (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The new setup seems to be good, but I notice the edit summary now states "undefined". TBrandley 01:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, not the dreaded undefined!! I did test the new code, but something must have slipped through. A quick fix might be in order. Amalthea, are you around? — This, that and the other (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's clearly been working for some people... What browser are you using? I won't be able to do anything until 9:00 UTC... — This, that and the other (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the most recent Mozilla Firefox browsers. TBrandley 07:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I've reverted the Warn module changes in the repo until such time as I can look at it more closely. The problem will persist on wiki until someone syncs the gadget. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The new, overhauled warning dialog should be back soon. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done It's back, and the custom warning feature I promised is here as well. Go to WP:TWPREFS and check it out. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

looks great! already used the disruptive template a couple of times... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 13:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the custom warnings! I never expected you to implement it so quickly. It works great. Thanks again – for this, as well as everything else you do here! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please restore the ics- image upload warnings, as quickly as possible. I need these all the time. They are not redundant to other things. {{di-no license-notice}} is a good-faith notification for people who may have simply forgotten to put some tags on an image. The ics- warnings are for repeat offenders who systematically make bad uploads and need to be given conduct warnings for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge

I just mangled a "merge to" (a stupid typo on my part) and have a couple of suggestions (or requests):

1. If the destination article does not exist, Twinkle warns the user that the page doesn't exist, but it still goes ahead and creates the talk page of the non-existent destination page. Would it be possible to test for the existence of the destination page before creating the talk page, and then not create the talk page?

2. For some reason, I expected the discussion to be placed on the talk page of the origin article, not the destination page. I don't think it matters where the discussion goes, but I wrote the rationale as if it was going to be on the talk page of the source, using terms like this article and here, etc. Would it be possible to clarify where the discussion is going to be placed? (You can get a sense of my confusion here (or perhaps that should be there)).

3. I think that the edit summary on the destination talk page would be clearer as Proposed merge from foo, rather than Proposed merge with foo

Many thanks for creating and maintaining Twinkle - I use it a lot. Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

1. This seems like a useful check to incorporate into the code. Thanks for suggesting it.
2. See #Merge discussions; I think I made the change suggested in that discussion so that the destination page's talk page is always used as the location for the discussion. There are arguments for and against each way of doing it, but our information page WP:Merging#Proposing a merger says "This will usually occur on the proposed destination page's talk page", so I deferred to that.

   I will add a clarification to the tag interface that states which talk page the rationale will be posted on ("this page's talk page" or "the other article's talk page"). — This, that and the other (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

3. I agree, the edit summary for {{merge from}} and {{merge to}} should use "from". For {{merge}} though, the destination is undecided, so "with" seems more appropriate in that case.

— This, that and the other (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Great - thanks for your replies. Illia Connell (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Also a bonus new preference will be coming to WP:TWPREFS#twinkle-config-section-7: "Add talk pages to watchlist when starting merge discussions". On by default. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally think the {{Merge}}, {{Merge to}}, and {{Merge from}} templates themselves need an overhaul to be more appropriate and accurate. I'm kind of worn out on suggesting improvements to things at the moment, and wouldn't be offended if someone else took the lead on this one. However, I believe it will end up waiting until I have rested my mnemonic abilities to present a case for improvement of these templates. Anywho, /rant off... Technical 13 (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

When you feel like doing it, you should take up that discussion on the talk pages of those templates, or some other relevant venue. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

DRV for Twinkle?

Maybe it would be a good idea to spread Twinkle to Deletion Review, similar to the script for AfD? Revolution1221 ^{(talk · email · contributions)} 21:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary for vandalism rollback

I noticed some time ago that the default edit summary for a vandalism rollback was changed. It used to state that vandalism was the reason for a rollback. Now that we have the Echo notification feature which lacks a prominent "orange bar" notification, restoring the comments about vandalism in the edit summary is even more important than it once was (hence the reason I'm bringing it up now). Could someone kindly explain why this was changed or point me to a recent discussion I might have missed? --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested to know why the edit summary for this type of rollback doesn't mention vandalism as the reason as well. Technical 13 (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is here. I was surprised too. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read the discussion, and I would much rather see it say something like "Reverted edit(s) by 18jewpeter is big identified as test/vandalism using STiki" than not give us any hints. I think it would be useful to know which articles I tagged as vandalism and which ones were AGF. I realize that STiki requires rollback rights, and I wouldn't be offended if Twinkle's "vandal" rollback did as well. (I'll be applying for the right shortly, just waiting on my CVU instructor to post my "exam" then I'll be a CVU/A graduate... Technical 13 (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You can still distinguish the types of rollback: AGF reverts contain a link to WP:AGF in the summary, and "vandalism" rollbacks are marked as minor edits by default, while other types are not (although users can change this in TWPREFS). — This, that and the other (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Twinkle. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).
Message added 22:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not directly a talkback, but please add a comment. ;-) mabdul 22:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A broader Wikipedia JavaScript library would be really nice; see Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 30#Twinkle SPI report. At the moment there is a substantial duplication of functionality between Page Curation and Twinkle. It would be nice to have a centralised place to store data such as lists of CSD criteria, article maintenance tags, etc. and logic such as this might also be suited to this library. My preferred implementation would be to create a hidden gadget that can be listed as a dependency for other gadgets. I would also think it would work better if it were developed in an offsite source control repository (like Twinkle), because wikitext storage is quite simply inadequate for any kind of collaborative coding. Some things to think about. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Section headings for Talkback

When leaving talkback messages the section heading created by Twinkle says "Talkback". Often, there are several such sections on a busy editor's talk page, It would be better if the headings were disambiguated, using, say, user name "Talkback from Pigsonthewing" or page titles "Talkback on Talk: Example". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You might be right. This would also integrate well with our new Echo notifications system, which displays the section title. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I support with this idea. I think, echo notwithstanding, it would be a technical improvement anyway. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Approve:  Technical 13 (talk) gives his support for this section's subject at 12:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC). — I agree with this but think it should go a little further. I've had multiple talkbacks on my talk page from the same user, and think it should be "<time>, <date> talkback from <user>". I just wish they would fix echo so that the link would go to the section instead of just the talk page.

Problem fixed - ignore

I changed my twinkle preferences and installed this site: User:Iselilja/twinkleoptions.js. However, I did something wrong and now I get the notice "Could not parse twinkleoptions.js" all the time when I look at my watchlist or a new page. I really want the notice "could not parse twinkleoptions" gone, but don't understand how to fix this. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Seems I managed to fix it myself now. Iselilja (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Unlinking files

is there a method similar to removing backlinks that works for files that removes a file usage? Werieth (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Unlink can do this :) — This, that and the other (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have tried, it doesn't work. Werieth (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say it "doesn't work"? Does it offer you the option of unlinking file usages at all? Does it start to do it but then give an error message? Something else? — This, that and the other (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Unlinking instances of file usage: 100% (completed)

Unlinking in article "United States national beach soccer team": Retrieving page...

Action: completed

Action: completed

Action: completed

on File:US Soccer logo.svg when trying to remove from United States national beach soccer team Werieth (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It failed because of a subtle bug that has existed in Twinkle since 2008... well spotted! I'll fix it soon. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Tag module

Hello again! As you are likely very aware, I see a lot of room for improvement in the current tag module. I've been doing a lot of thinking about this, and decided that in my little free time (this might take me a while to complete as I don't get much), I would like to try and implement "some" of my changes myself in a test module (I would likely create it on test.wikipedia).

1. What are the bare minimums I would have to copy if I was to do it on test.wikipedia OR is it possible for me to disable the tag module here on wikipedia and activate a test module via my common.js here?
2. Where do I find the tag module to work on it?
   • Apparently Twinkle doesn't use multiple scripts as modules, they are all contained in one script.
3. Who, other than TTO, works on Twinkle if I have to ask a question (I don't want to have to bother TTO every time)?
   • User:Amalthea
   • User:AzaToth
   • User:Animum
   • User:Remember the dot
   • User:Ioeth
   • User:Rjd0060

LOL I've even answered most of my own questions... If I could get someone to answer the rest, that would be great. Thanks, Technical 13 (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle is actually maintained on GitHub here, and each module is maintained separately (see the modules folder). All the modules are squashed into one script when synced to the wiki. jcgoble3 (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you pulled that list of users from... I wouldn't have included Animum, Remember the dot or Rjd0060 (no offence to these users is intended – I just don't think they have been involved with Twinkle coding for quite a few years now), and also, MC10 (talk · contribs) is another Twinkle developer.

The way I work on Twinkle code is with Firefox's "scratchpad". When I am ready to test the module I am working on, I just press Ctrl+R to execute the code, and then invoke the module (e.g. Twinkle.speedy.callback() or Twinkle.tag.mode="article";Twinkle.tag.callback()) using the Ctrl+Shift+K web console.

If you're keen to contribute code, you could fork our GitHub repository, commit your changes to your fork, and make a "pull request" to the master repo. Then we (one of these people) will vet the code and merge it into the master repository if we see fit. Learning Git was a challenging experience for me (I've got to thank AzaToth for answering my silly questions when I was a Git newbie) but it's worth it. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Where might I find your silly questions and AzaToth's answers so I won't need to ask them as well? The only stupid question is the question you don't ask - Idiomatic Proverb — Technical 13 (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It was all on IRC, and I've sadly lost the logs :( — This, that and the other (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I got the logs, but the contexts can be difficult to ascertain after such long time... _→AzaToth 19:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Your account is too new

I tried to use Twinkle and then was told my account was too new. How old does an account have to be to use Twinkle? It doesn't say anywhere in the documentation or the pages about this gadget.Mj12hoaxwriter (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that it requires you to be autoconfirmed which requires a minimum of ten edits and four days since registration. Technical 13 (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That should be documented.Mj12hoaxwriter (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Change to "autoconfirmed users"

Please change the lead-in text from "registered users" to "autoconfirmed users" so that people like me aren't confused when Twinkle doesn't work. Mj12hoaxwriter (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It actually is already documented and I just confirmed my theory. WP:Twinkle/doc#Troubleshooting_installation. I will modify the home page accordingly to be less confusing and TTO or whomever can revert it if it was inappropriate for some reason unknown to me. Technical 13 (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Except Twinkle installs fine as a script. It just gives an error message. I wouldn't have known to check the Troubleshooting installation documentation as it installed correctly. In any case, thanks for making the change. This should be made clear, I think.Mj12hoaxwriter (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Changes in renaming policy

Just a note to say that, as you are probably aware of, the way changing username is changing - more info is avalible on WT:UAA. Because of this, I am currently editing a load of templates, but I doubt my changes will affect the tool. I'm not sure if you will need to change any of the other parts/wording of Twinkle. Mdann52 (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping the note. If anything major changes with regard to {{uw-username}}, {{uw-coi-username}}, and/or the UAA process, it would be good to let us know (actually I will probably keep an eye on those areas for a while as this change approaches). — This, that and the other (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI in case you missed it this change has been pushed back to at least August, so I would expect any actual changes will come up again sometime closer to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle threw an error on AFD

"Adding discussion to today's list: failed to find target spot for the discussion"

I haven't seen this before, but it appears to be that the "afd3 process" (meaning logging the AFD to the AFD page) failed. MSJapan (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This problem should have gone away now, since it is a new day with a new AFD log page. It happened because the comment which Twinkle relies on to locate the top of the list of discussions was removed. Perhaps Twinkle's error message could be more helpful here. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Attack pages

When Twinkle is used to inform an editor that an attack page that they created has been nominated for deletion, it can be problematic when the title of the page itself includes the attack. For example, if someone created a page called "Edgar181 is stupid", when Twinkle is used to inform the creator and the page has been deleted, there will appear on the user talk page "Edgar181 is stupid" three times in bright red letters. Repeating and highlighting the attack like that should be avoided. Could Twinkle pipe the links, instead referring indirectly to the page such as like "[[Edgar181 is stupid|this page]]"? This is the specific case that drew me here. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Technical 13/+3 Support:  Technical 13 (talk) gives his support for this section's subject at 18:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC).

(edit conflict) The G10-only notice ({{db-attack-notice}}) hasn't included the page name at all, piped or unpiped, since last October. This instance appears to be caused by a multiple-criteria tagging, which uses a different notice ({{db-notice-multiple}}), which will need to be modified. The welcome message, {{firstarticle}}, probably shouldn't be included in this case, also. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hadn't realized there was still an issue with this, we should do whatever is needed to close any loopholes and make sure that any notification regarding an attack page does not mention the name of the page. I have had to do multiple suppressions in the past to deal with such situations, which is not something we actually want to do as it makes a mess of edit histories and (so I've been told) can make the entire website run slow . Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Over at the talk page for the ANI notice template, I proposed that the signature be added to the end of it. Because the talk page gets about as much attention as the average subsubsubsubsubsubsubusertalkpage, I thought I would also put it on a page with slightly more traffic. So, thoughts on putting one's user signature in the ANI notification template?

I've been saying for month that the template should include ~~~~ by default since it is a substituted notification template. Technical 13 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A better talk page to try would be WT:ANI. My opinion is that it is much more obvious to users if the signature is not included in the template - that way, the four tildes are always shown in template documentation, etc. If the signature was placed by the template, it might be unclear to some users, who might try to add their own four tildes and then find they have signed twice. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Because of the way that they do it at AN/I... WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader has a section that looks like:

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so.

Even the Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Has a section that uses {{You should notify any user that you discuss}} which looks like:

This leads me to believe that the template should include the signature by default as the the four tildes are currently not shown in any of the ANI documentation (it is indeed shown on Template:ANI-notice, but who checks there when they are upset and are posting something in ANI? Technical 13 (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Normally I'd use Twinkle's TB feature to add this to a usertalk page and the signature is added by Twinkle. However, before Twinkle was able to deliver this message, and everyone had to do it the old-school way, it did irritate me that a signature was not included in the template. Also, I presume if someone disables 'insert signature in talkbacks' in Twinkle preferences then no sig will appear? Pol430 talk to me 11:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This pref does not affect admin notices. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

My original post was copied over to The admin noticeboard talkpage. TheOneSean | Talk to me 11:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)