Wikipedia talk:Twinkle

Add topic
Active discussions

RfC: Welcome-menu and Welcome-graphicalEdit

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus these templates should not be included as default options in the Twinkle welcome template menu. Users who may still wish to use them to welcome newbies may add them themselves to their personal twinkle tool using their custom Twinkle preferences. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Join WP:FINANCE! 21:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Should {{Welcome-menu}} and {{Welcome-graphical}} be included as options in the Twinkle welcome template menu? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


{{Welcome-menu}} and {{Welcome-graphical}} are two of our oldest welcome templates; both were created in 2006 and have changed little since then. For many years, they were included the Twinkle welcome menu as default options. A year ago, I launched a proposal arguing that they were poorly designed and should be removed as defaults (I'll save the rationale for below to keep this section more neutral); it found consensus and the result was implemented. Twinkle allows editors to add custom welcome templates in their preferences menu, so editors who wished to continue using them were able to easily do so. Recently, a few users of those templates who were unaware of the custom option noticed they were missing and asked for them to be restored as defaults. The prior discussion participants were not notified, nor was welcoming committee, but the request was implemented out of process with minimal discussion. I raised this issue above, and an RfC was suggested to help settle the question more firmly. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


  • No for both. As noted above, any editor is free to use any welcome template with Twinkle by adding it in their preferences. But defaults are powerful, and as welcomes are ultimately for the benefit of the newcomer being welcomed, the Twinkle menu should encourage editors to use our best options.
    These two templates are among our worst. Newcomers have consistently reported feeling that Wikipedia's guidance is an impenetrable, overwhelming labyrinth, and one of the most valuable functions of a good welcome template is to boil it all down to a streamlined launch ramp of the minimum essentials needed to get started productively. These templates don't do that, instead succumbing to the understandable but deeply flawed impulse to try to list out a quasi-comprehensive directory of every major page.
    {{Welcome-graphical}} has about 20 links, many of which (such as Wikipedia:Directories and indexes) are themselves lists that spiral out to hundreds of further pages. Many are also redundant. For instance, it offers five different pages in the getting started section all attempting to be a starting introduction, without any guidance on where the actual best place is to start. This is guaranteed to result in choice paralysis, and good luck to any poor newbie who ends up at WP:The Missing Manual – what does it say about us to suggest that a literal book (from 2008) is what you need just to get started?
    {{Welcome-menu}} is even worse, with around 60 links. If a newbie so much as simply has a question they want to ask, this template responds "use {{helpme}}, or go to the Teahouse, or go to Questions and read the instructions there, or maybe Request administrator attention, or consider getting adopted, or there are the IRC channels, or maybe this talk page thing is what you want." That's an absurd and ridiculously unhelpful response, particularly for someone who doesn't know how to differentiate between those options like we do; compare it to {{Welcome}}'s straightforward "get help at the Teahouse" button. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • No. Ignoring the fact that these menus are out of date, the option to use them still remains available for those who wish to do so, they're just no longer the default option. This seems perfectly reasonable. Patr2016 (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • No Defaults are important, and we should not condone/encourage templates that are not too the point. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. I do not feel it is Twinkle's role to tell editors which templates to use or not use. I feel Twinkle should include templates that are popular, and there is plenty of evidence that these two templates are popular. For example, a request with multiple participants to have it added back the last time we removed it, and the number of people that have added it to their Twinkle custom template list to basically undo the previous removal. [1][2][3] It's ironic because I agree with shorter welcome templates in principle, for example I always use {{Welcome-short}}, I just don't agree with putting up obstacles to accessing popular templates. I am concerned that there isn't enough support to TFD the templates in question, and that this is being used as a backdoor to deletion. Nothing personal if this RFC passes, I am happy to abide by the results, but those are my thoughts on the matter. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • No. Twinkle shouldn't be suggesting these templates are generally and equally appropriate for use as a welcome for any and all new editors. If the templates are still available to use with custom TW preferences, then I see no problem with this proposal. DB1729 (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • No. thanks for the ping. These templates are not good for helping most users. I think that part has been made clear by the comments above. These are popular in part because they are defaults. By removing them as defaults, that can lead to welcomers picking other options that are more useful. - JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • No Editors here raise good points, I don't feel the need to type forever to expand excessively. BUT agree with Liz that {{Welcoming}} should go. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 16:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC) (edited 03:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC))
  • Yes I use Welcome-graphical as my default template as do other editors. It is far superior that the horrendous "Welcoming" welcome message which takes up half the new editor's user talk page. That one should go, I never see it used because it is so garish, over-sized and inappropriate. Welcome-graphical is just the right balance of providing links and useful information. Until it was added back, I had to use the cookies Welcome message which was not the message I want to convey, it's more appropriate for a children's website. This is not kindergarten where we are giving out cookies and hot chocolate. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Liz {{welcoming}} should probably go too (never seen it before), but you can stil use {{welcome}}, the main welcome template, or {{welcome-retro}} which is what the cookies welcome is based on (but without the cookies). As Sdkb mentions you can also add custom welcome templates so you can still use graphical in Twinkle if you want. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. Welcome-menu is my go-to welcome. I think it essentially serves as a table of contents into the Wiki-culture. It mostly is well-chunked (see The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two). Perhaps there is a reason it continues to have been used since 2006. Maybe it needs some redesign, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Peaceray (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Let editors make the choice they like. Our newest versions don't work well in mobile view so many lIke ones they know are viable.Moxy-  23:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Neither of the listed two should be in Twinkle's default list per Sdkb. --Izno (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, I guess? Don't take my !vote too seriously, as I don't often welcome new users. SWinxy (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


Pinging participants/mentioned editors from the prior discussions: @Moxy, Elli, Vaticidalprophet, JackFromWisconsin, Allninemice, Peaceray, Liz, DavidBrooks, TheTVExpert, Novem Linguae, User:Deepfriedokra, MMiller (WMF). Notified Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

A side note, but having mostly been away from editing for a couple years, one of the things I noticed when I came back was how much better the new welcome template is - I love it. @Sdkb is there a reason other welcome templates haven't been updated in a similar way? Sometimes I want to use something slightly more appropriate but I end up using {{Welcome}} cause it's so much more to the point. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
@Galobtter, thanks, I'm glad you like it! The update was controversial enough that I'm not sure how successful you'd be trying to update others similarly. But one change we'll soon have the opportunity to make is finally getting rid of the "please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~" instruction, as it'll be unneeded with the new talk page project features. Rolling that out may be an opportunity to make broader improvements while we're at it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abuse report info missingEdit

I see that there is the Abuse subsection (which even has its shortcuts WP:TWINKLEABUSE and WP:TWABUSE) stating:

"Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo changes that are constructive and made in good faith.
If a change is merely "unsatisfactory" in some way, undoing/reverting should not be the first response."

However, there is no information on where to report that. How can I report seeing an instance of Twinkle being abused in that way? (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You could share a WP:DIFF here to get some second opinions. In general if it is an isolated incident, you could try talking to the user on their user talk page. If it's a pattern of behavior, you could escalate somewhere like WP:ANI. I don't recommend ANI for minor things though, there should be some kind of severe, actionable behavioral problem. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Should there be some clarification in that abuse section? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that using TW's good-faith revert option is acceptable in reverting good-faith edits. Furthermore, the standard TW revert, if accompanied by a suitable edit summary (which it prompts doing), is acceptable to be used for problematic edits that are not clear vandalism. It's my understanding that any revert without an edit summary, whether performed by the undo function, TW, RW, rollback, etc., implies the edit being reverted is vandalism. And there is at least one exception to that even, like mass revert of banned socks contributions. DB1729 (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I also think that section comes off a bit strong. I'd be fine with you or someone boldly editing it if you think you can improve it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Stupid Message on BLPPRODEdit

When I tag an article for BLPPROD because it is an unreferenced BLP, I get a message saying that the tagging may not be applicable because the article is not in the category "Living Persons". That is true but stupid. An editor who creates an unsourced BLP in article space is unlikely to know what categories are, let alone to use them correctly. If the code is checking for the category, it would be more helpful, if it did anything, to ask if it should add the category to the article. Of course the reviewer tagging the article is more likely to know whether the subject is a living person than the originator of the article was. I suggest that either the message be eliminated, or it ask whether to apply the category.

By the way, if I tag the article as A7 instead, it doesn't check whether the article is in any of the applicable categories, and I don't think that it should, because A7, like BLPPROD, is applied to articles that were created by editors who don't know about and use categories. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I tried to reproduce this on testwiki. I saw "Please note that only unsourced biographies of living persons are eligible for this tag, narrowly construed.", but it's embedded into something as a quick warning, and doesn't require any extra clicks. Is that what you're talking about, or something else? If something else, please post exact text (so I can search the code for it) or a screenshot. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm positive I've seen the warning before (its a popup separate from the regular Twinkle box), but I can't reproduce rn, give me a second. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae an imgur link good?. Also @Robert Mclenon: this is what you meant? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Perfect, that's exactly what I needed. Patch submitted for approval. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Add "Prefs" to Twinkle menu?Edit

Any interest in adding a preferences option to the Twinkle menu? It's currently buried 2 clicks away, either via opening a module and then clicking the preferences link at the bottom right, or by going to WP:TWINKLE then clicking on the hatnote. It's accessed often enough that I think having it be one click away makes sense. There's a ticket for this on GitHub but it has a "needs consensus" tag. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, for what its worth, I support. ― Qwerfjkltalk 22:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Patch submitted for review. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

edit-warring diffsEdit

Is there a way to generate the edit-warring report diffs without actually creating the report? Putting the diffs together for an editor on a single page is useful for a bunch of other reports as well, so if there is a way to generate the wiki-code for it quickly without actually creating a report at AN3 that would be super useful. nableezy - 16:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey there. You could middle mouse wheel click the "Today at #:## AM" type links, which would open new tabs with those diffs loaded up. If you'd like something different, let's hammer out some details and I'll make a feature request. Details would include a diff of what it'd be useful for, how you want the output (Wikicode?), etc. I'd probably do it as some sort of button or link on the screenshotted screen. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Things like reports of the 1RR violation at AE or diffs used for an ANI report is what I was thinking of. Output would probably have to be wikicode or just saved to a configurable sandbox to modify as needed? Or even an option to generate EW report and not save it to copy and paste as needed. nableezy - 13:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Ticket created. Thanks for the idea. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
No, thank you, nableezy - 15:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

CSD G4 and XfD should accept talk pages as linksEdit

Hello! Twinkle's CSD tagging for {{db-g4}} and {{db-xfd}} should accept talk pages (in any namespace) as a link to the deletion discussion, per the guideline WP:XFD, as requested moves can be deletion discussions. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 20:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Patch submitted for review. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Anybody want to help with writing code?Edit

Anybody want to help with writing code? I've tagged 5 open tickets with "good first issue". These are super easy and mainly involve editing some configuration variables. The challenging part would be 1) compiling and running the development version so you can test your code (see tutorial here), and 2) if you've never used Git to make branches and submit pull requests before, that could be a pain. I'd be happy to answer any questions if you get stuck. I could probably write patches for about 20 of the open tickets, but I am currently limited on time, so would appreciate any help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, if you want a bunch of very new people to try, you could try listing twinkle at mw:New Developers - honestly, I found just preparing for that to be a good exercise. Fair warning, though, they're very new and might not all stick around. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Bug? CSD nomination not loggedEdit

I recently nominated User:Jyotiaditya001 under CSD, but it didn't get logged under my User:CX Zoom/logs/CSD page, although CSD nominations just before and just after that logged normally. Thanks! CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 20:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Unable to reproduce on testwiki. testwiki:User:Novem_Linguae/logs/CSD looks good. Is it possible you refreshed or clicked away from the original page too soon, interrupting Twinkle's workflow before it could write to the log? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that should explain it. Well, I don't remember exactly but I nominated 3 pages within a 3 minute window, so that could be a possibility. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 21:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

AFD displaying success and failed messages despite succeedingEdit

Reported by Tamzin on Discord. Diff. Screenshot. "Your deletion rationale is provided below" should not be displaying when AFD created successfully. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)