Wikipedia talk:Twinkle

Latest comment: 1 day ago by Jonteemil in topic Twinkle didn't write filename in FFD listing

Recent reverts


Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo changes that are constructive and made in good faith.

@Meters, I agree with @AutisticAndrew and would support removal of the statement. Twinkle has a "revert good faith edits" feature on diff pages called "rollback (AGF)" that makes the above statement seem untrue to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It used to say unless a reasonable attempt is made to improve the content rather than revert it (when the contribution has value), and an appropriate edit summary is used but that was lost in the shuffle years back. Maybe just restore that part? Certainly, that's how I've always interpreted it. As I've already said in a similar discussion at WT:ROLLBACK, it makes no difference to the "victim" what tool is used to make a revert. Either the reverter 'splained themselves, or they didn't, and that's what matters. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I just feel that the page saying Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo changes that are constructive and made in good faith., conflicts at least with Twinkle, Rollback for example is only for obvious vandalism as I'm fully aware, I just feel that with Twinkle having a revert (AGF) option that it causes conflict by saying Twinkle shouldn't be used for edits made in good faith as it has that option. - AutisticAndrew (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The current wording is misleading, yes. But we don't want to encourage people to click "rollback (AGF)" and leave the summary blank, either. That's still 90% as BITEy as using one of the other buttons. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Any kind of undo/rollback with no edit summary, manual or with any tool, should be reserved for obvious vandalism; and if you use undo/rollback with an explanatory edit summary, it doesn't matter whether you are making the edit with a helper tool or script. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the current state is a bit of a problem. I think the confusion arises with two different features of Twinkle; providing an easy Rollback/Undo option to any user (regardless of confirmed status) and providing canned warning templates. The 2021 diff above (listed by Suffusion of Yellow, edit by user:DKEdwards) separated the qualified "shouldn't be done unless" statement, into a definitive "shouldn't be done" statement, followed by qualifications in separate sentences. That wording still does a pretty good job of covering a difficult situation, and I don't think simply removing the definitive "don't" statement is the solution. AutisticAndrew thinks it is contradictory to have the statement "should not be used to undo changes that are constructive and made in good faith" when Twinkle has an AGF option, but there's an and in that statement that he seems to have missed, and where is this supposed "AGF" option in Twinkle? I'm not aware of any "AGF" option when using Twinkle to undo an edit, and I very frequently use Twinkle to leave that user page messages about edits I have undone that may well have been originally made in good faith, but that were still a problem: POV edits; attempting to link to external images; unsourced claims; promotional additions; etc. There isn't much other than blatant vandalism that isn't possibly a good faith edit.
And why do we mention Huggle and Rollback at all? This is an article about using Twinkle, not a general article about undoing or revertng edits. Meters (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Novem Linguae:Where does the Twinkle "rollback (AGF)" show up? I don't believe I have ever seen this. Could this be a Huggle prompt instead? Meters (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Huggle is a Windows application so is unable to affect links in the browser. The HTML link class is named tw-rollback-link-agf, with tw- probably meaning Twinkle, so all evidence points to it being Twinkle. Maybe visit your Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and make sure "Show rollback links on these pages" -> "Diff pages" is ticked and saved? –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm kinda not sure why "constructive" is there. Why would anyone even want to revert an edit that's constructive? Alpha3031 (tc) 12:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
This issue is too minor for all the talking this is generating. Let's just take a stab at fixing it. How's this? –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Preferred wording (changes in bold): "Please take particular care with the rollback links provided by Twinkle. Only obvious vandalism qualifies for rollback without an edit summary. If you believe an editor's contribution was made in good faith, you should include an edit summary." DonIago (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to edit my edit :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm fine with either NL's or DI's version. Both are major improvements over the old language. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've gone ahead with my tweaks. Other editors are welcome to revert if they feel NL's version is preferable; I promise I won't get mad. :) DonIago (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Novem Linguae (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rollback AGF's description

When using Twinkle's AGF option, the following popup appears: "An optional comment for the edit summary..." If this should not be optional, please change that wording.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 22:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

TW doesn't leave Template:Shared IP Advice if warned in Contribution page


Hi there,

I noticed that Twinkle stopped or doesn't leave Shared IP Advices if warnings are made on the contributions page of an IP user. To reproduce:

  1. Go to an IP's contributions page, like this one.
  2. Hit the TW button.
  3. Click on Warn
  4. Give any warning, such as Uw-Vandalism1
  5. There is no {{sharedipadvice}} given.

Thanks! Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Novem Linguae Could you take a look at this? Is this something I can change in Twinkle Preferences? Thx. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Users abusing this tool to add {{One source}} template to stub pages


There are users abusing this tool to add the {{One source}} template to a lot of various stub pages even though the template advises against doing this. Please add documentation to the tool so that users stop doing this. Ergzay (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Similarly for the {{More citations needed}} template which people abuse using twinkle in the same way. Ergzay (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
If a user is abusing Twinkle, then that user should be dealt with at the usual locations (usually by talking to them first and then WP:ANI if that doesn't work). We shouldn't be gutting the tool unless everyone is misusing it. Primefac (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Primefac I didn't propose gutting it. I proposed documenting it. Ergzay (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Isn't it already documented on the /doc pages for the various templates? Twinkle has a disclaimer that the end user is responsible for all edits they make; we do not need to give template-specific warnings in the Twinkle documentation. Users misusing warning or maintenance templates should be notified of such behaviours. Primefac (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
indeed 2600:1700:6EE:6890:2D59:1F74:BE97:D6A7 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

TwinkleStarter/enwiki's tag module misidentifying ptwiki tags


Hi! I've been working on TwinkleStarter to localize it to the Portuguese Wikipedia. I've been adapting the enwiki tag module, since it's "already setup", having only changed the tags themselves, nothing else, but I've encountered issues with tags being misidentified when they're already present in the page, more specifically, {{Sem notas|data=março de 2016}} and {{Corrigir}} (pt:Predefinição:Sem notas and pt:Predefinição:Corrigir) have been misidentified as {{Contextualizar}} (pt:Predefinição:Contextualizar), with Twinkle listing it under "Tags already present". I'm running the gadget in a webserver, so all I can give as reference is my repo. Any help would be immensely appreciated. BraunOBruno (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Identification of existing tags is based on the box-{NAME} class that appears on the ambox element in the html, which on ptwiki appears to be controlled by ambox's |nome=. pt:Predefinição:Sem notas and pt:Predefinição:Corrigir both contain |nome=Contextualizar, which is the problem. – SD0001 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's a sillier issue than I thought it would be. Thank you so very much, @SD0001! BraunOBruno (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey, @SD0001, sorry to bother you, I'm a little in over my head here. The tagging seems to be working quite well, but when there is a (equivalent of) multiple issues tag and then I only leave one tag active (unchecking the others), Twinkle removes even the one that was supposed to stay ([1]), any clues on that? Again sorry and thank you. BraunOBruno (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not sure. Could potentially be due to a bug in twinkle-core. The intended behaviour is that the one tag should be removed as well as the multiple issues wrapper (assuming groupMinSize is 2), leaving the other tag. Try running the debugger if you're able to see the code which is causing the other tag to be removed. – SD0001 (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

PROD - Edit window colors


Hi, I am on Monobook skin, so there is a "Prod" tab that I click on to begin delete proposal. At Reason for proposed deletion the edit window appears as Black. When I type, it's also black, so I am typing blind. Question: any way to change colors? For regular Wikipedia edits, I have colors set like the old IBM green screen, i.e., black background with green text. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. You appear to be using custom code at User:JoeNMLC/monobook.css. You might be the only person with this problem. It is likely you need to get someone technical to adjust your monobook.css code a bit. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Done - @Novem Linguae, I ran several tests & changed both bg and text colors for the Edit window.Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Creating new month section when unneeded


Theres a bug where if a talk page already has a warning section for the current, but the month isn't capitalized, twinkle will create a new month section if you use it to warn somebody (instead of just adding the new warning to the already existing month section). You can view this bug on my user talk page, where I tested it (check the june 2024 and June 2024 sections). Gaismagorm (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you provide a diff or two of this bug in the wild? How often does a month warning heading get created that isn't capitalized? This is the first time I've ever heard of it. Anyway, I wonder if a different tool has a bug. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not common since most people remember to capitalize, but I could probably find an example, it will take a bit though Gaismagorm (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
User talk: theres an example of it occurring. There is two sections for September 2023 since I added a section and didn't capitalize september, then somebody else used twinkle to warn and it created a new section Gaismagorm (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
also It's not that it creates an uncapitalized month section, it's that it doesn't recognize an already existing section as existing if the existing section isn't capitalized, and it then creates a new one. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not a bug, the names of months are capitalized even in the middle of a sentence in English. Twinkle has no obligation to account for misspelled section names. Nardog (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
ah ok, my bad. sorry bout that! Gaismagorm (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

remove template at top of Chicks on Speed page


could you remove the template at the top of the Chicks on Speed wikipedia page please - I am in the band and working on updating the page, adding citations and sources for improvement and accuracy, thanks! Alexmurrayleslie (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

while I understand your concerns, the issues are still in the article, so I don't believe removing the template is a good idea just yet. I'd also reccomend not editing the page if you are a member of the band as it would be a conflict of interest. I'd also reccomend bringing this over to the chicks on speed talk page. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Blocking notification messages


Is there a way to block Xfd discussion notification messages from being added to a User talk page, such as this Cfd notice posted to the talk page of an indeffed user? These are creating extra work for other editors to remove. What about a category, something similar to this category which blocks mass-mailings, or maybe a {{bots}}-type template? Or any other way for a non-page owner to disable the notification (i.e., not their preferences, or common.js, etc.). Or maybe the script could just check and not post messages on pages of indeffed users, who can't respond to them anyway? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is a frequent request. See Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 48#Notification opt-outs, Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 48#Feature suggestion for XfD nominations for example. I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be with reducing auto notifications. Notifying users when their pages are getting deleted is the norm I think, and makes sense to me. These are creating extra work for other editors to remove. Out of curiosity, what is the idea behind removing these? Aren't they harmless if left in place? And removing them likely double notifies since it is a 2nd diff. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Following the links, I like Amorymeltzer's suggestion at Archive 44 of creation of a {{no twinkle}} template with various options. Could something like that be implemented? Also pinging ProcrastinatingReader and SD0001 because of their comments at that thread. Mathglot (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm still not sure why people are overly concerned with whether talk page messages are left. As mentioned in previous discussions, a {{no twinkle}} template probably wouldn't be used for deceased editors because people will want to potentially fix articles that have been nominated, and I'm still not sure why people are so bothered by leaving notices (of any type) on the talk page of indefinitely blocked users. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Twinkle didn't write filename in FFD listing


See Special:Diff/1234934762, Twinkle didn't write the filename there for some reason. Jonteemil (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply