Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CharlotteWebb (talk | contribs) at 14:39, 18 September 2008 (comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia. Bugs and feature requests should be made at the BugZilla because there is no guarantee developers will read this page. Problems with user scripts should not be reported here, but rather to their developers (unless the bug needs immediate attention).

Newcomers to the technical village pump are encouraged to read these guidelines prior to posting here. Questions about MediaWiki in general should be posted at the MediaWiki support desk.

Advanced search is hard to find

I did not notice right away, but advanced search is at the bottom of the regular sidebar search results. Could a link to "advanced search" be put in the sidebar of all pages?

Or at the very least, at the TOP of the regular sidebar search results too, and not just at the bottom. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitting the "Search" button (next to the "Go" button) takes you to that page; a link already is on every page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but very few people know that, I believe. I have been editing Wikipedia almost 3 years and have over 14,000 edits and did not know that until now. I have always entered a search term or phrase and then clicked either button. I don't remember clicking either the "go" or the "search" button without entering search terms. Or it was so rare that I did not remember where it sent me too.
Most of the time I use the Google toolbar to search the Wikipedia site anyway: the "Search only the current Web site" button. I would have liked to have used the advanced search more since there is more specificity in what it can search for in some cases. But I disliked the extra steps I had to take to hunt up the bookmark. So this is good to know. Many other people would probably like to know this.
No offense, but nerds who work a lot in an area (for example the Wikipedia sidebar and interface), tend to lose sight of how others perceive that area. They don't realize how unintuitive some things are. I have my areas I focus on in nerdlike fashion, and fresh perspectives have been very helpful at times. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good idea to put it in the "toolbox" section of the sidebar of wikipedia pages. I hope it is named "Advanced search" since that is a search tool name people are familiar with. So the link could be in this form: Advanced search. That is also the name used on the submit button on that search page. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I too would like an Advanced search link in the toolbox since I want to be able to right click it and choose "Open link in new tab", and I can't do that with the [Search] button.
--David Göthberg (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this doesn't get implemented generally, anyone who wants it can easily do it with personal javascript. Algebraist 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If whatever you search for doesn't exist, the "Advanced search" thing is at the bottom of the search results page. Mr.Z-man 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the OP said that in his first sentence. The issue is whether it should be more visible. Algebraist 01:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best solution would be to make the word "search" (above the search box) link to Special:Search rather than adding it to the bullet list. — CharlotteWebb 17:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I was wondering why there were 2 buttons, one labeled "Go" and one labeled "Search". I think one of them could be removed. Then a simple link labeled "Advanced search" could be put in its place. A link, not a button. A link can be right-clicked as David Göthberg suggested, and the advanced search page can be opened up in a new tab. I dislike having to open it over the original existing page. That wastes bandwidth and time if I have to go back to the original page. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They serve different purposes. "Go" (a.k.a. "I'm feeling lucky") loads a page with a title exactly matching your input, if one exists, and "Search" will give you a list of pages containing text similar to your input. I'm just suggesting that we change the text above the sarch box from: 

<h5><label for="searchInput">Search</label></h5>

to 

<h5><label for="searchInput"><a href="/wiki/Special:Search" title="Advanced search">Search</a></label></h5>

— CharlotteWebb 18:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That would work. Not sure that everyone will understand that the box below the link is not for advanced search though. But this idea of putting the "Advanced search" link just above the search box is much better than before. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear no! The Wikipedia:Manual of Style explicitly states that section headings in articles "should not normally contain links", since most editors think that is ugly. So please don't link the box headings in the interface. Also, renaming that box heading to "Advanced search" would be misleading about the box content, and not renaming it would be misleading about what the link means.
The advanced search is mostly for us editors who want to search other name spaces. (Well, and for experienced readers who want to right click and open a new tab.) So put the link in the toolbox. There are plenty of vertical space in our sidebar, since most pages are far longer than the boxes in the sidebar. (And I have a very slow computer but loading and rendering some extra text is no problem, so it's not a performance issue either.)
And keep both the [Go] and [Search] buttons. They are both useful and I have seen my non-geek friends use them and understand them without problems.
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can only hope your appeal to the MOS is a sarcastic one. — CharlotteWebb 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Maybe if the "Advanced search" link was put at the top of the "interaction" section then it would be close enough to the search box to be noticed right away by people who want to do a search. Or better yet, put the link at the bottom of the search box below the "go" and "search" buttons. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CharlotteWebb: No, I don't use sarcasm. I know the MOS doesn't apply to anything but articles. But it is still a good reference for what many Wikipedians think is good style.
Timeshifter: You got a point that it would be nice if the Advanced search link is put somewhere close to the search buttons. I tried it in my image editor and it doesn't look that good in the search box (below the search buttons). So I suggest either at the top of the "interaction" menu, or perhaps more fitting at the bottom of the "navigation" menu. (And adding it to any of those two menus is just a simple edit to MediaWiki:Sidebar, while adding it to the search box is probably more complex.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sole commonality is the coincidental use of a <h[number]> html tag for each, so comparisons are tenuous at best. — CharlotteWebb 16:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the bottom of the navigation menu sounds good. Search is definitely a navigation tool. And the "Advanced search" link would be directly adjacent to the search box. I have another problem. When I enter a search term into the search box the popup suggestion box that drops down covers the "go" and "search" buttons. This makes it almost impossible to actually do a search! So putting the "advanced search" link above the search box is better. This allows people to go some place where they can do a less-encumbered search. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Timeshifter: When you type in a word and don't want to do an actual search instead of just clicking one of the alternatives that pop up in the drop-down list, then all you have to do is to click anywhere outside the box (on the page) to close the drop-down list, then you can click "Search". The word you typed will still be in the text field.
Everyone: It seems most of us want to have a link to Advanced search in the sidebar, and that some of us think the best place is at the bottom in the "navigation" menu. So I will add it there now.
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! SharkD (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done - The Advanced search is now in the "navigation" menu in the sidebar. If you don't see it on a page you visit and feel impatient then you can purge the page. About a week from now all pages will have timed out in the cache and will have re-rendered and then everyone (including IP users) will see the Advanced search link on all pages.
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I see it. Is there a way to make the dropdown menu (the one with search suggestions) open up so that it doesn't cover up the "go" and "search" buttons. Maybe make it open up a little to the right? Also, could the search results for regular searches open up in a new tab? --Timeshifter (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to add hotlinks for some of the more advanced function, like there is on edit pages? Or, at least provide a short key/legend? SharkD (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which advanced functions? —AlexSm 04:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I oppose this addition. So far I saw two arguments:

  1. some users never find advanced search fieldset. Solution: add a jumping-down [[#powersearch]] shortcut to MediaWiki:Searchresulttext which is displayed above search result
  2. some users need a direct link to advanced search. Solution: a bookmark in your browser.

By the way, a little tip: if you want to search in one particular namespace, just type it as a prefix, e.g. typing "wp:apple" and clicking "Search" will look for "apple" in "Wikipedia:" namespace. —AlexSm 04:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SharkD: I don't know what you meant by "hotlinks". But do you mean that on the Special:Search page you want to add some more explanations how it works? I looked around and there is at least the MediaWiki:Searchresulttext which seems to be the message that is placed at the top of Special:Search, so seems we can add more text easily.
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the question was about insertable characters (aka edittools)? Certainly possible as a gadget. —AlexSm 04:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AlexSm: Your first suggestion above is good. I checked the rendered page code and there is an id at the advanced search box at the bottom of the page, so yes, we can add an anchor link from the message at the top of the page.
Your second suggestion does not help people who read or edit from public computers. And does not help people who don't know the link Special:Search in the first place.
Your third suggestion does not help the millions of people who don't read this Village pump page.
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I want more of an explanation of how it works on the search page itself (a terse cheat-sheet with examples should suffice). And possibly the insertable characters like can be found on the edit pages. SharkD (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benefit to readers?

I don't see the benefit to non-editors. The only people who really care about namespaces other than the main namespace are editors. If I was a casual reader and saw "advanced search", I would assume it was actually more advanced than the normal search in a way that actually matters to me. It's not. --- RockMFR 23:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, the "Advanced search" isn't really useful for non-editors. In fact, calling it "Advanced search" at all is somewhat misleading. All it does is search namespaces that aren't the default one, or what you have set in your preferences, other than that its the same search, it really doesn't give any advanced options like Yahoo's or Bugzilla's. The only real advanced options (Boolean search and category intersections) are available via the normal interface. Mr.Z-man 23:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main benefit is to be able to get to the search page that has some options. I don't really care if the link is labeled "Advanced search". Just labeling it "Search" is fine with me. Maybe the options aren't all that advanced, but they are helpful, and are better than having no options. The search box in the sidebar has no options. The sidebar search form also does not have room to see more than 2 or 3 words without scrolling. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most beneficial feature for readers is the ability to search Wikipedia using Google. Algebraist 23:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike the addition too. It doesn't seem special enough for its new shiny home. Ian¹³/t 15:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you guys noticed that the Special:Search has a drop down box where you can choose to do a Wikipedia site search with Google, Yahoo, Windows Live, Wikiwix and Exalead? And there is much more to Special:Search than most people know, read all about it at Wikipedia:Searching. What that page currently lacks is some added explanations of all the advanced options there really is. Anyway, since the advanced search at the moment does not come with a proper explanation then you guys are right that it is mostly useful for our editors.
So, how would you guys feel about if we only added the Advanced search link for logged in users? (Disregarding the fact that many of our editors edit as IP users.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some people don't see a use for advanced search is not a reason to remove it for those of us who see a use for it. Many people will use it to search talk pages, or images, or help, or categories. A very big benefit is that it allows people to right-click the link and open a search page in a new tab. Many, many people will use it just for that reason alone. Especially dial-up users who do not have the time and bandwidth to use the regular search. Regular search opens up in the same page, and one has to use the back arrow and reload the page to go back to the page. Over time many more people will use Wikipedia's search tools if there is an advanced search link. If you don't like calling it "advanced" then just use the name "search". The point is to make it easier to use search. Right now it is very difficult for many people for the reasons I discussed earlier. And how can people navigate the site best without search? So the search link belongs in the navigation section of the sidebar. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Timeshifter explains it very well. And using a less strong title for the link is probably a good idea. But to differentiate it from the "search" heading I suggest we call it for instance Extended search. That is not as a strong name as "Advanced search".
--David Göthberg (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, since the WP:Manual of Style does not apply to the sidebar we can go ahead and make "search" clickable. This way we are not adding more text or more length to the sidebar. I read all the relevant guidelines at WP:MOSHEAD and WP:ACCESS#Links and none of it applies to making the search heading clickable in the sidebar. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, if the whole section title is one link then it doesn't interfere with screen readers, thus it isn't an accessibility problem. And technically the Manual of Style only applies to article content, but it reflects what many editors think is good style. So just because the MOS does not technically apply to the rest of the interface doesn't mean we should add bad/ugly style to the interface. And yes, many of us feel very strongly that linking headers is VERY ugly.
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a header in my opinion. It's a less-indented sidebar link followed by a searchbox. In fact, an asterisk can be added in front of "Search", so that it fits in the same indented format as the rest of the sidebar links above it. I often see sidebar links in nested tree form. I am a webmaster myself, and my sidebars have various lists of links in various indentations depending on the need. As for the name of the link I am happy with any name. Another thing that might help is to put the search box inside the table of the navigation section so that it truly is part of that section, and the search link then becomes truly just another navigation link. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move search form to top of page. Keep search link in sidebar

Another possibility is to move the searchbox to the top of the page to the left of this stuff at the very top of all my Wikipedia pages:
Timeshifter - My talk - My preferences - My watchlist - My contributions - Log out
I am using the default monobook skin. On my 17-inch monitor screen all the links are on the right half of my monitor screen. This leaves the left side open for the searchbox and search buttons in one line:
[Search box] [Go] [Search]
This way a search link in the sidebar is totally separate from the searchbox at the top of the page. I like this option best of all since it allows more room in the search form for more search terms. Also, the dropdown menus of suggestions and options would not cover the go and search buttons. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper consensus?

I don't really think there is much use for it either, and I'd to get some kind of consensus from a wider audience. Per above, it seems only useful to editors who need to search for something they've lost in the Wikipedia namespace and such, not much use to the majority of our visitors. If we could have some discussion of what the community actually thinks of this, that would be perfect. [[::User:Byeitical|Byeitical]] ([[::User talk:Byeitical|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Byeitical|contribs]]) 16:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I count 12 editors who have commented:

  • AlexSm
  • Algebraist
  • Byeitical
  • CharlotteWebb
  • David Göthberg
  • EVula
  • Ian
  • Mr.Z-man
  • RockMFR
  • Sardanaphalus
  • SharkD
  • Timeshifter

Opinion seems to be split on naming the link "Advanced search". I haven't heard any objections to naming the link "Search". See the reasons for it higher up. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter: That is not entirely correct. I for one have objected to just call it "Search" since that naming would collide with the existing search box. Since some think "Advanced search" is a too strong name for it I have suggested the name "Extended search".
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with any name. I just want a link. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can parser functions recognize some UNICODE characters?

HI! MOS requires that negative numbers and minus signs be represented by an "en dash" or a "minus" not a "hyphen", but only a hyphen can be evaluated in a template.
Can expr.php even see/recognize these characters? Thanks. Saintrain (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doing math with n-dashes and whatnot would only be possible if you use #replace: first, see [1] (most of these are not enabled here). — CharlotteWebb 01:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the MOS actually demand a U+2212 minus and not an en dash? Anyway, if output is all that is cared about someone could write a template containing something like {{#ifexpr:({{{1}}})<0|−{{#expr:-({{{1}}})}}|{{{1}}}}} to wrap the calculation that was done using the normal ASCII hyphen-minus character. Using the U+2212 minus in input to an expression seems to be impossible without either the mentioned string functions extension or someone changing ParserFunctions to recognize the character. Anomie⚔ 02:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want to use a unicode minus instead of a simple - to do subtraction? You can type one with your keyboard, and you can't type the other with your keyboard... — Werdna • talk 11:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CharlotteWebb, thanks! That's a great approach, but if I may, how to represent "from" so it's still a text file?
Anomie: now it does; until this edit there was at least onc "endash". I think there needs to be a few "#iferror"s in the template text, too?
Werdna: I for one don't; all three are practically indistinguishable on my displays. But I'm trying to work with some legacy templates that used to just display negative numbers to now also calculate with them (and maintain backward-compatibility). Saintrain (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking. — CharlotteWebb 13:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How to code the "from" param in #replace or str_replace to recognize a U+2212 but keep the php file non-UTF-8. But it looks like that can't happen. Thanks anyway. Saintrain (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the string being processed is UTF-8, you could construct the U+2212 literal for str_replace in various ways. The easiest is probably "\xe2\x88\x92" (at least until php6, anyway). If by "#replace" you mean the StringFunctions extension that is unavailable here, you shouldn't need to worry about it. Anomie⚔ 23:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a hunch (I haven't asked and don't plan to pursue it) but I don't think ParserFunctions.php or Expr.php are going to go UTF-8 anytime soon. (If that's a possibility, I'm all ears.) But thanks. Saintrain (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you want to avoid making MediaWiki source files UTF-8? They're always supposed to be UTF-8. Look at the localization files, for instance. There are also various comments signed by Avar, and probably other things. Most of the actual code doesn't have any use for the non-ASCII part of UTF-8, but there's nothing wrong it. It's present in some places. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I hadn't noticed that and, ahem, assumed that the php files were text (they do look texty and my test-only editor didn't choke on them) and that they were going to stay that way. I had given up but you have given me new hope! CharlotteWebb has shown there is a simple (1 line?) fix for this. Thanks again. Saintrain (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, UTF-8 files are text. Text is not the same thing as ASCII. UTF-8 is a text encoding, just like ASCII is. It's a much fuller and more useful one, and should typically be used instead of ASCII and other encodings in most cases ― so MediaWiki does. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! I didn't realize what UTF-8 was before (and there's an article!). Expr.php is a UTF-8 encoded file with nothing but ASCII characters in it. Backward compatibility rox! Very clever these committees! Saintrain (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Unicode minus is the width of a plus sign, while a hyphen is in most fonts considerably narrower. (Compare: -5, −5.) Traditional typography mandates that the symbols be different. As with a lot of former typographical conventions, this is under siege by the limited number of keys you can fit on a keyboard, but any serious published work is going to use proper minus signs for negation and subtraction, not hyphens. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Maybe everybody could type "-" and it would get rendered "—"? Nah, too easy.
Is it possible to get a U+2212 into a php file (for the #replace) and keep it text? I've looked and can't find it. Thanks. - – — Saintrain (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC) — – -[reply]
PHP is not Unicode-aware. If you put a literal UTF-8 U+2212 character in a PHP file, it will interpret it as a sequence of three bytes. So str_replace( '−', '-', $str ) will do what you want, as long as both the string and the PHP file are UTF-8-encoded. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nuts! Don't think that's gonna happen. Thanks to all. Saintrain (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, when I'm rong ...! Bugzilla's just committed the fix as revision 40762. Saintrain (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bugzilla's a bug tracker, it doesn't commit fixes. :P —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, of course it is. I was using bugzilla as a metaphor for the process; I assumed that readers of this VP would be familiar with it. The actual commit should be credited to Aryeh Gregor, and his comments and hints were much appreciated. Saintrain (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's me, by the way. :P —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 15:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki could use an update

I've been having to edit-war ClueBot III [2] over an API bug, and I happen to know that a lot of API bugs have been fixed in the 100 or so revisions since Wikipedia's version of MediaWiki has last been updated (or "scapped", as it apparently is called). Could someone get Brion or Tim to scap the servers or at least do it sometime soon? Calvin 1998 (t·c) 05:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know Brion was on vacation, then he was sick after he got back. He might not have finished reviewing all the commits since then. ^demon[omg plz] 03:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we try not to dump updates to the server that we haven't at least looked at. :) --brion (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have quite a few revisions to look at :) Calvin 1998 (t·c) 01:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing default history page size to lessen workload for servers

Has anyone suggested reducing the default article history from 50 to 25 or 20 to reduce the server workload? How much of an effect might this have on such a popular website? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-11 17:06Z

Not a lot. Listing out some metadata from the revision history isn't really an expensive operation. --brion (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reducing the default watchlist size would probably make a greater difference. — CharlotteWebb 03:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People with big watchlists are probably going to manually set it higher anyway, so I expect not. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlist data comes out of recent changes, not article histories. --Random832 (contribs) 15:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, and? This thread was an alternative suggestion. Neither one is probably going to help at all.` —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re Brian: unless there is evidence that serving page histories is significantly increasing the server load, speeding up that part of the software won't make much difference overall. I don't know what percent of requests are for page histories (the server admins probably do). But as an abstract example: if something is taking 5% of the total server time, and you make that thing much faster in a way that doesn't affect the changing the remaining 95% of the server time, you won't see much overall speedup. For this reason, optimization is usually done in response to a demonstrated bottleneck. There is a lot of profiling code in mediawiki that the server admins already use to detect these bottlenecks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background colour in articles

I only wanted to suggest that the default background colour for the articles can be changed by the reader, preferably to another very light non-white colour. Me and other frequent readers spend hours reading articles, and the white background is really tough for the eyes even after changing the monitor settings. An option to change it to e.g. cyan,(or other really light colours) would be very useful for readers that spend a lot of time on the site, or readers with eyes sensitive to intense light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.125.223 (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you register an account, you can change your Monobook.css file so that the background color can be anything you want. In most other scenarios (such as readers with light sensitivity), the best option isn't to tweak the background color (which could cause readability issues), but to either turn down the brightness on the monitor or to customize the colors as I pointed out. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With an account one can choose green text on a black background. I find this much easier on the eyes. DuncanHill (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your browser should also give you the option to override site styles in some fashion even if you aren't logged in. Firefox does, at least, and I expect so do all other non-IE browsers. This is not a discoverable or easily-used function, though: you have to know what CSS is to know about it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
. . . #ffffec . . .

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

. . . #ffffff . . .

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

Support off-white as a sitewide background color for mainspace. On my own MediaWiki wiki, I've set #ffffec as the background color for all pages and it does a great deal to lessen eyestrain. Indeed, I've set a similar background color in my email client and text editor.

This is not a user-specific issue, although some users may complain while others suffer silently. Did you ever wonder why slide rules are yellow? Light of different colors is refracted differently by a lens, for example that in the human eye; this is chromatic aberration. People with entirely normal eyesight will see a slightly blurred image when black text is displayed on a pure white background. This is true even when the display is homogenous, such as ink on paper. A lightly colored background reduces this effect.

Some people may feel less annoyed by chromatic abberation than others but then, there are people who are comfortable reading a book next to an operating jackhammer. That's not an argument against quiet living rooms. Nor should we expect casual readers to tinker with technical details; the project should be as presentable as possible, by default.

The current fashion of black-on-white pages is in part a reaction against the excesses of the early web, with magenta text on animated GIF backgrounds; in part it is related to the demand for white kitchens, white carpets, white sugar, and Wonder Bread -- the perceived superiority of pure whiteness. We're coming to realize that white homes are hard to keep clean and white foods hard to digest. We should also realize that white web pages are hard to read.

— Xiong熊talk* 12:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xiong: I took the liberty of making your whole comment use your off-white colour to make it a better example. If you don't like it just remove it.
Everyone: Since this talk page has slight blue background these examples look more yellow than they really are. They will not look as yellow if/when used for the whole article background.
--David Göthberg (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regular white #FFFFFF, currently used in articles.

Off-white colour #FFFBF0 that David uses in his computer.

Support - We can make this as a user friendly menu choice even for IP users, see explanation further down.

Books and newspapers are on purpose printed on off-white paper, since that is easier on the eyes. (While for instance brochures are usually printed on full white paper since that does look better, but you are not supposed to spend as much time looking at them.) I have good eyesight but sensitive eyes, so already many years ago I set my computer to show all "white" areas as a slight off-white. See my colour example to the right. I even get that colour in the Wikipedia edit window!

However I know many of my friends find the colours in my computer slightly strange. Many seem to prefer full white. (In spite that they complain they get tired eyes from the computer and can't understand how I can spend 15 hours a day 5 days a week in front of the computer.)

I am no JavaScript expert but I think we can do the following:

We probably should keep the full white colour in articles, but add a menu option in the sidebar to the left that says something like "Off-white background". That menu option can activate a JavaScript that changes the background to off-white. And it can set a JavaScript cookie so the same background is shown the next time the user visits. I think that should work even for IP users.

--David Göthberg (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Oppose default change, support user option if technically viable - If what Simetrical states below is true (that such IP user cookies would ruin the Squid caches) then we can not have such a menu choice. Unless of course it is added to the MediaWiki software in a smarter way. If the default should be changed then it should of course be a much lighter tint than the one I suggested above for the user option. But I don't think we should change the default colour since my experience is that most readers prefer the full white, in spite that it is bad for them. So could the devs perhaps at least think about if they could add this option in some way that wouldn't ruin the caches?
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC the developers have objected to (and intervened to revert) use of cookies for IP users in the past [dismissable sitenotice], and I believe it is technically not allowed by the privacy policy (which idiotically says "There shall be no cookies" instead of something more sensible like "We won't track you") --Random832 (contribs) 15:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there's a privacy policy issue. Maybe there is, but that would be fairly idiotic, I agree. But the Squid caches use Vary: Accept-Encoding,Cookie. If you give out cookies to half of anons, Squid can't serve pages generated for one set to the other. You're fragmenting the cache. This is the reason a number of proposals related to customizability for anons have been nuked in the past. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd very strongly support a change of default background colour. Whether to a noticeably different buff tone or just a subtle change, unnoticeable without side-by-side comparison, it's a quick accessibility win, and should hurt no-one. Please remember that many people don;t or can't have javascript enabled. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the change (i like the yellow, but support other good colours). After looking at the yellow backgrounded (is that even a word?) text, I truly reckon that it is less of an eyestrain than white. And of couse, since Wikipedia's main slogan is something along the lines of making knowledge more accessable, the colour change could help in a small way. — ^.^ [citation needed] 12:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose default change. Turn your damned screen brightnesses down if white hurt your eyes. Newspapers don't have brightness controls, monitors do. High-contrast backgrounds aid significantly in the readability of low-resolution text, which is what most of our readers are lumbered with. Setting an off-white in addition to green-on-black as an easy option in prefs might be welcome, but changing the default isn't. Yellow would be an act of insanity. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. This would make Wikipedia look clowny. We're not MySpace; if someone want's a different color, they can easily edit their preferences or their monobook.css. This would not only be ugly, but probably scare off readers looking for reliable information. Admiral Norton (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per thumperward and Admiral Norton. D.M.N. (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot question; not sure if this is the place to ask?

Hi. I'm not sure if this is the place to ask this or not. :) I know nothin' about bots, to speak of. Zorglbot is continuing to create "image" subpages for WP:CP about a month after images have been removed. It's not malfunctioning in any way, but at some point it needs to be rewired/reprogrammed/convinced somehow to stop. :) I left a message here for Shutz, who operates Zorglbot, on August 29th and then left a message at the French Wikipedia, his primary home, on August 31st. He has edited there since, [3], and here as well, but only a handful of times and has not responded at either project. This isn't an emergency; I've been adding a note redirecting imagevios and have recently just started deleting the image subpages. But I am curious as to whether anybody else has the keys to this car, as it were, and can stop these image subpages being created or if I should continue adding that note until Schutz reappears. If I should take this elsewhere, please let me know. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's performing a task without consensus, it should be blocked. — Werdna • talk 02:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It used to have consensus. It's just that the needs there have changed. Most of what it's doing, creating new sections and new article pages and automatically bringing the current listing up, continues to be useful. I just can't quite figure out how to have it tweaked to stop doing the one thing that it shouldn't be doing, given my inability to communicate with Schutz. That's why I'm wondering if somebody else has the ability to alter the bot and how one would go about finding that person. I don't know if only the bot's creators have the ability to modify or repair them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally it would only be the bot's creator who could modify them. If it's running on the toolserver, a toolserver root could do it too, although I don't know when policy permits that, if ever. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the bot is doing a task it shouldn't (in this case a task you don't want it to do anymore) and the bot owner is not responding, then you should block the bot. (I see you are an admin so you can block it yourself.) Then you can ask other bot owners over at Wikipedia:Bot requests to take over the other tasks that the bot was doing that is still useful to you.
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. :) I'll let Schutz know my intentions and wait a couple of days in case he chooses to respond before following through. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection mismatch

Resolved

I'm trying to investigate a mismatch concerning page-protection (not sure if this is the appropriate forum, please move if not). The surface problem is that there are 2 unprotected pages; the underlying query is about missing protection-log entries and incorrect protection-tab-labels appearing for Ancheta Wis. (Note: I am not an admin, so can't see the protection tab at all.) Prior discussion at User talk:Ancheta Wis#C and at User talk:Quiddity/Archive 8#Protect tab.

Detailed summary:


Supplementary info, found whilst trying to investigate the problem:

Anyone know what is going on? -- Quiddity (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Ancheta Wis has been an admin since 2005 but it seems he/she doesn't know how page protection works. (I hope this was just a bad day for Ancheta Wis.) Just adding the {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} template does not make the page protected.
I checked and Portal:Contents/Categorical index and Portal:Contents/Quick index were only move protected, not semi protected. Then admins do see the "unprotect" tab instead of the "protect" tab. Since those pages have had some vandalism I semi-protected them. As far as I can see it worked fine and I could not edit them when I took a look at them as an IP user. And my protection action is visible in their page history.
I did not check all the log stuff since I have to go to bed. But either move protection only does not show up in the logs, or that move protection was done so long ago it is not anymore visible in the logs. (How the database work has been changed over the years so it is fairly common that some really old actions do not show up in the logs.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When a page is moved, the protection comes with it, but the logs do not. "Wikipedia:Community portal" used to be at the title "Wikipedia:Community Portal" and the logs for the old title are here. Similarly, "Portal:Contents" used to be at the title "Wikipedia:Contents" and its logs at the old title are here. It would be nice if it was easier to track moves when you know the new title but not the old one. I had to track down the page moves by using whatlinkshere and hiding the links and transclusions. It would also be nice if logs moved with a page, or there was at least some indication like "the old logs for this page title are at this URL".
The protection log started to be logged on a special page on 23 December 2004 - the older protection log is still at Wikipedia:Protection log. Protection of page moves only became possible around the same time, and was always displayed in the logs. Graham87 07:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, pagemoves! I thought I might be missing something simple there. That accounts for the empty logs. Thanks.
What about Wikipedia:Community portal not showing up in Special:ProtectedPages? (No related problems here, I'm just curious) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quiddity and David Göthberg, thank you for the page protect on the Categories portal, and for following up on the puzzle. It has been a good day, hasn't it. I appreciate the time you all have spent, and I have learned more. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because Wikipedia:Community Portal was protected before Special:Protectedpages was developed. Graham87 03:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion depth limit exceeded

Currently, this template can accept no more than 36 parameters before it starts complaining about exceeding the expansion depth limit. This can be seen in the example, here. I was wondering if the template could be optimized further to accept additional parameters. Thanks. SharkD (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I found a compromise that works. SharkD (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rotate uploaded image

hello! i have recently uploaded an image of a castor plant fruit, but noticed that while it displays correctly on my file system, it is rotated incorrectly on wikipedia. please, how do i rotate an image on wikipedia? i found that you can use a display: inline-block; transform: rotate(0deg); template on wikimedia, but apparently that doesn't work here. thank you for your help! Computersnob (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could rotate the image on your computer, 90° counter-clockwise, and re-upload it. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. The problem was that your camera or whatever program you used to rotate it didn't actually rotate the image, it just changed the Exif "orientation" tag. Wikipedia's image scaling software (which uses ImageMagick) doesn't understand that tag, so it rendered the image in its "real" orientation. I just ran exiftran -ai on the image and reuploaded it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake like this one time, was embarrassed and quickly tried to fix it. But the servers were loopy that day and the second upload kept timing out. I'd suggest adding some kind of buttons to do this automatically on the server side rather than needing to re-upload, except I'm pretty sure it would be used more for vandalism . — CharlotteWebb 21:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template help

The white gaps inbetween the purple cells are a bit too wide in Template:Video RPG (backlinks edit) for my tastes, but I can't seem to be able to lessen them no matter what I do. How do I fix it? Thanks. SharkD (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turn it into a standard footer navbox; then you won't have to have three show/hide sections anymore either, and it won't interfere with page layout (like it is in Chronology of tactical role-playing video games). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the current format. I just want the spacing between cells to be less. Also, the template doesn't interfere with the layout—the lead is just too short. SharkD (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. I figured it out. SharkD (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have two accounts here in Wikipedia?

Hello all. I have asked this in my usertalk page, but I was suggested to go ask it in here. I have an older account here for making articles in Wikipedia, named User:Theencyclofreak. Although the userpage of this account still exists to date, I can't log-in to it. If I misspelled my password, it would have said so, right? Instead, the message displayed was similar to "User Theenyclofreak does not exist. Check your spelling and try again" (this is NOT the exact notice displayed)

Could it be that this account has been deleted? I don't need it back though, but I was just wondering about what happened to it. Thank you all, and good day. User:UndefinedFractal 18:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theencyclofreak still exists. When I try to log into the account I get the message 'Login error: Incorrect password or confirmation code entered. Please try again.' Are you sure you typed the username correctly? Algebraist 18:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, never mind. It's working now. I guess it was my connection. It happens a lot to me in other websites. But, can I have two accounts here in Wikipedia, this one for minor edits (such as misspellings) and the other for broken links and adding relevant refernces/information? Theencyclofreak (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is WP:SOCK. The big question I would have is "Why do you have any need to do those types edits on separate accounts?" Anomie⚔ 19:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you don't pretend to be two (or several) people it's acceptable. Since you have already declared that you operate both accounts, there is little chance of intentional or unintentional deception, and that's the important part. — CharlotteWebb 20:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theencyclofreak/UndefinedFractal: I think you should link those two userpages to each other, with an explanation that you have another account. Something like on the User:Theencyclofreak page put this: "I also have the account User:UndefinedFractal, I use it for bla bla."
If you do not link them to each other then I don't think it is okay. (But I haven't read up on the relevant policies for a while. But I think you should link since that will annoy people less.)
A good thing can be to redirect the talk page of one of those accounts to the other. Then state at the top of the talk page that you have two accounts and what you use them for and that the other account's talk page redirects there. That means you can keep all your discussions on one talk page. (If you also should redirect the user page or not is a matter of taste. It can be clear to not redirect the user page since then it can contain a visible explanation and a link to the main account.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have a new problem: Save doesn't work

I have to click "Save" about three or four times before it "takes". It just keeps returning the edit box back to me as if I had clicked on "Show preview". Corvus cornixtalk 21:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it actually show you a preview, or just return you to the edit screen? Algebraist 21:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quit after running into problems yesterday, so I don't know if it's still going to give me problems. It was just returning me to the edit screen. Corvus cornixtalk 19:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar problems, unanswered questions

This reminds me of a peculiar incident back in May; it's both relevant and irrelevant, so I've branched it off into its own sub-section. It was during that long debate on moving the search box to the top, over at the Proposals section of the Pump. When posting in the main section of the discussion, I often could not save until clicking on "preview" (I normally use wikEd's previewing function). If I remember correctly, it blanked out and I had to go back from my browser. I'm not sure what caused it, but I've always suspected a custom-made search bar in the section in question. There simply wasn't anything else that looked like a probable cause to me.

Does anyone know what could cause an effect like this, namely not being able to save unless hitting "preview"? Waltham, The Duke of 23:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Léon M'ba

Does anyone know how to fix ref no. 83 at said page? Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 21:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with it now? Algebraist 21:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gimmetrow fixed it. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 21:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logging out after 30 days feature

Hello, this post is about the Wikipedia feature that logs out registered users after 30 days. I apologize if this question has been asked before. I checked the main FAQ and the technical FAQ, but did not find anything about it. Also, the archives are simply too large to check more than a few archives back. Anyway, I was wondering if it would be possible to change this feature so that it only logs users out after 30 days of either not visiting or editing Wikipedia (I say "either" because it might be easier to implement one versus the other). If there is a concern that someone could take over an account permanently as long as he or she visits or edits every 30 days, then perhaps the site could log you out no matter what after somewhere between 90 to 150 days.

If this is not feasible, then perhaps the time before being logged out could be increased to 60 or 90 days. While having to enter a single password once a month is a very small burden, with all of the other passwords I have to enter on other websites, it adds up. Also, while I have not written down when Wikipedia logs me out and cannot be certain, I think that it may be logging me out every two weeks or so rather than every 30 days. I made a note that it logged me out today and I'll see when it happens next.

Finally, if no one can tell that the account has been taken over, then the impersonator is probably doing a decent job (if a takeover is suspected, then the account can be blocked until the person's identity is confirmed, or whatever the current policy on such things is). I do not see much of a problem, other than the possibility of misplaced blame, as long as the account does not have bureaucrat status or higher (perhaps special requirements could be made of those accounts, although I think that the danger is small because they make up so small of a percentage of accounts). Admins can do significant damage, but almost all of it is easily and quickly fixed by other admins. Also, once the impostor has revealed him or herself by causing damage, then he or she can be quickly blocked. For these reasons, I see little danger in either increasing the amount of time before being logged out to 60 or 90 days or only logging out if the account has been inactive for 30 days, with the option of forced logout after 90 to 150 days regardless of activity.

I edit sporadically these days, so it may take a while for me to reply to any responses. Thanks, Kjkolb (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really shouldn't be a horrible pain for you to have to log in once a month. You could try manually changing your cookie settings to make the cookie last longer, if you like. --brion (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kjkolb: I think 30 days is about right. With 90 days you would only need to use your password four times a year, I think many users will forget their password if they only get to use it that seldom.
And if you forget to log out of a computer, say at your friends house, and the cookie is invalidated after 30 days, then there is a decent chance that your friend will not even discover that his browser is logged in to Wikipedia before the cookie is too old.
Of course, for a public computer like at a school then 30 days is way too much. But you should not click the "Remember me" option when at a public computer. Well, you shouldn't even use that option at a friends house. And it can be wise to use a secondary account when not at home. It is allowed and even recommended to create "sockpuppet" accounts for this reason. (Choose a similar name and link between then so people know it is the same person.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I view forced timeouts of cookies as saying "Screw you, occasional visitor!" I happen to visit Wikipedia every day, but there are other sites with forced timeouts that I don't. What inevitably happens is that when I happen to visit the site, I've been logged out, and have to try to figure out what my password was, often using the password reset process (since I use a different password for unrelated sites). More than once I've decided that it wasn't worth the effort to remember or reset my password, for the little post I was going to make. This isn't logging in once a month, so much as logging in every time I use the site.

I would like to be logged in until I decide to log out. If someone compromises my account, this can probably be detected and rectified quickly. At worst I'll lose some unprivileged account on a website I (in most cases) don't really care much about, in the extremely marginally likely event that anyone cares enough to steal it. More likely, I'll be able to prove my identity and recover it, to no one's loss at all.

This isn't a banking site here, it's just some website, where moreover even the privileged accounts can't do anything that's not easily reversible. When convenience and security are at odds, the balance should tilt heavily toward convenience for us. Even if it's technically possible to fiddle around with your cookies, and I'm sure I could figure it out given twenty minutes, it's kind of silly to say that it's okay to inconvenience users because they can work around it by . . . hmm, inconveniencing themselves to figure out how to manually adjust cookies. If anything, it's the security nuts who should be told to adjust their cookies manually.

Are there any justifications other than security for this behavior? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it. If we were a bank we'd be logging you out after 10 minutes like assholes, though, not after a month. :) --brion (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage Extension

There's a MediaWiki extension called "Interlanguage" that is designed to make the maintenance of interwiki links much easier. For more info see:

I tried it in its test wiki. It worked very well and seemed very useful.

What is the right way to ask to enable it in Wikipedia? I filed a request in MediaZilla:

Further comments are welcome. If you think that it's useful, vote for it or something (although I don't know how important those votes actually are.)

Is there anything else I should do?

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look. It seems that technically it is fairly sound, but only fairly. There still are some issues:
  1. The central interlanguage.wikimedia.org wiki has to be deployed and tested.
  2. There still is the grand discussion about how the articles on the central interlanguage wiki should be named. Should they be in English (but some things don't even have an English name), or in the language of the first article on the subject (well, that would make many titles just ??????? for many of us and I can't even cut and paste the names of articles in some of those languages), or should they perhaps simply use numbers (perhaps not as user friendly but at least works technically)?
  3. There are some other issues how to describe on the interlanguage page what it is about. Should for instance the interwiki links on that page be put in small templates with link + short description? Or should we instead (or perhaps as an additional option) use such a template on the Wikipedias? That is, interlanguage link + description, then a bot can copy that to the interlanguage wiki page.
The interwiki system seems to be very new, just some month. So I think it needs to be discussed and thought about a bit more. But it is good that you announced it here Amir, so more people get to know about it and can take a look.
Now please don't discuss these issues here, those were just examples. Go to the pages that Amir linked to above and their talk pages.
--David Göthberg (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the best place for discussion about the implementation in Wikipedia is meta:Talk:A newer look at the interlanguage link. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the cutting and pasting—most likely you are copying the text properly—you're simply not using a Unicode font and/or the correct encoding. UTF-16 is the native encoding of Windows and Java, so it should work in Notepad, MS Word, Open Office, etc. I've run into the problem, though, where some third-party text editors encode text in ANSI by default, and have to be reconfigured to use UTF-16 (or UTF-8 if UTF-16 is not available).SharkD (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may find this site to be helpful. SharkD (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested something similar to this a year ago in a de-railed mailing list thread, see [4]. — CharlotteWebb 17:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of 3G for consumer in mobile & computer & other usages.

My name is John, I wanted to know the usages of 3G in telecommunications as well as in Internet/Computers and any other future advantages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.83.232.8 (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This desk is for discussing the technical aspects of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. Have a look at 3G and if your questions aren't fully addressed, you can ask at the Computing section of the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Hope this helps. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Languages sidebar for WP:ANI

Resolved.

Can anyone point me at the right place to fix this, I can't find a template or suchlike? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 15:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look. The link he wants is already there and is working, and it has been there since 28 February. So there was nothing that needed fixing. I left a message at that page with more explanation how it works.
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Fixer

Just an FYI:
Someone had comited page move vandalism on the 2008 Chatsworth train collision page, and the User:Redirect fixer bot retargeted the following pages to the vandal page.
Chatsworth train crash
2008 Chatsworth, California train collision
Chatsworth Metrolink Train Crash
2008 Chatsworth train accident
2008 Chatsworth Metrolink collision

These pages sat this way for several hous before I found them and reverted them. Not sure what can be done about this, perhaps the bot should go back and double check for red links?

Just thought I would bring this to your attention. -Brougham96 (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See bug 15622. MER-C 03:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny text on Chrome

Does anyone know why text using <tt> (like this) or <code> (like this) appears really small (like half the size) when using Chrome but the same size as normal text when using IE7 or Firefox? It would be nice if this could be fixed, if possible. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try setting your fixed-width font to a larger size in "options". −Woodstone (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thank you. Much better. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinking in template

I'm working in updateing the COinS data in {{Citation}} and I've encounted a little problem. With citation like {{Citation | last1=Artin | first1=Michael | authorlink1=Michael Artin | title=Algebra | publisher=[[Prentice Hall]] | isbn=978-0-89871-510-1 | year=1991}} note how the publisher is an internal link. When generating the coins data, ideally the publisher would be encoded without the brackets.

So is there any trickery to remove markup from a template parameter. (I'm working in a sandbox User:Salix alba/sandbox also sandbox2 and 3 before going live). --Salix alba (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could use create a general-purpose "de-link" template containing:
{{#replace:{{#replace:{{{1}}}|[|}}|]|}}
and then use it like this {{de-link|a [[werewolf]] drinking a [[pina colada]]}} to remove the links. Unfortunately this won't work because (most of) mw:Extension:StringFunctions is disabled here. A specialized function just for de-linking template parameters would have a much higher benefit-to-abuse ratio and could easily be enabled instead. One would also expect it to intelligently handle piped links. — CharlotteWebb 22:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what happened

Hey, i created a dab page, and shortly thereafter, the page was marked for speedy deletion by a user. I asked folk for assistance and suddenly there is no record of the speedy delete at all. I asked the user what had happened, and they siad they didn't know what I was talking about. I am positive I didn't imagine the speedy delete posting (located nominated it for deletion here). Can someone poin t out what is going on? I get that the matter is fixed, but I would like to understand what happened, and why the user would now be disavowing the speedy delete post. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page was speedily deleted [5], but Can't Happen Here (disambiguation) is now a redirect to Can't Happen Here DuncanHill (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three dimensional tables

I was wondering if we might brainstorm how we might extend the sorting behavior to three-dimensional tables (i.e., tables where each cell contains a linear list). What I'd like to be able to do is be able to determine which item in the list appears at the top. In this way, one could sort a column and be able to determine which item in each cell is considered when doing the sorting. Are there ways of achieving this? SharkD (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

login page oddness

in case no one has commented on this before: I've noticed that when I get logged out of wikipedia (which happens sporadically), if I happen to get a User Talk message while I'm offline, the 'you have new messages' banner appears on the login page, before I actually click the button to log in. not a huge problem, but it is odd that somehow wikipedia is recognizing my identity and fetching notifications even though I haven't 'officially' told it who I am, and it might be problematic if other information is available before login as well.

this may be browser specific - I'm using Safari on a Mac, which automatically enters my username and pass into the login fields via keychain (though it does not automatically log me in). could someone with more knowledge of the system I have figure out why this is happening, and whether it represents a deeper problem? --Ludwigs2 16:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has probably left a message for your IP address, not your username. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a recurring fault, in which you appear to be logged out, but when you go to the login page you are actually logged in - your watchlist, contributions etc tags appear at the top and if you click on them you are logged in. DuncanHill (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ah, ok. as long as it's a known problem. --Ludwigs2 20:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with all those A's in the dropdown menu?

I've asked this before and so have other people, but nothing has happened to fix it.

Right below the Do not copy text ... material is a box with a menu (Insert, Wiki markup, Symbols, etc). Next to it, where there used to be a whole collection of clickable items is a long collection of A's and a's plus some boxes. This, of course, is completely and utterly useless.

I am using a Mac iBook, running on Mac OS 10.3.9, and I'm using Safari.

Now, when I switch to Firefox, I get the expected items in the menu, but not with Safari. Safari is my preferred browser, though if I get annoyed enough, I'll switch to Firefox to get the symbols I want from the menu. Having to switch browsers just because the code is cockeyed seems counterproductive, don't you agree?

Can someone actually do something about this, or will the issue get swept under the rug?

Timothy Perper (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use Safari (under both 10.4 and 10.5), and I've got the usual symbol selection table. What version of Safari are you running? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a font problem at your end. See Help:Special characters or Help:Multilingual support for help.
Check MediaWiki:Edittools to see the full set in raw. (Even with some of the unicode fonts installed, you might still get a few "unknown character" placeholder symbols (question marks, squares, etc). The warning template {{SpecialChars}} is often used in articles. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be at least one other user with this problem. Can some Mac-head do an FAQ on how to fix it? I use Microscrap Internet Exploder myself and don't have the problem - but I might tip off that PC guy in the commercials that he should challenge "Mac" to a WP-editing contest. ;) Franamax (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's me Julia. I went to the Help links but being totally untechie, can;t figure it out. I hope it gets fixed somewhere... Julia Rossi (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy and Julia, click on this: MediaWiki:Edittools - do you see the full set of symbols? That may give people a clue as to where the problem lies. Franamax (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I get the full text when I click on MediaWiki:Edittools. No A's nor a's. But I do not get the full text from the drop down menu. I'm using Safari 1.3.2 (v312.6). In brief, it doesn't work. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too because that's what it used to be like. There is good news: I reported to Apple about Safari, then I downloaded an update for my computer (max os x 10.4.6) and all this time later, when I open to edit, the drop down now has the proper fonts. *big sigh* -- hope this helps you too. Thanks for your support Franamax and others. (now little red underscores appear when the word is not dictionary -- gah!) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text rotation

This article uses an interesting technique of achieving vertical-orientation of column headers by replacing text with SVG images. I was wondering if there were a means of achieving this using only CSS? Creating SVG images for each and every heading isn't viable in every circumstance. SharkD (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the writing-mode: tb-lr CSS argument to render the text like the article in the link. Not too sure if this will work on all browsers though. Thanks AreJay (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it listed here, so it must be a CSS3 property. I'll test later how broad the support is for it using browsershots.org. SharkD (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehe I read that as "writing-mode: tl-dr". Seriously if we have a good reason to use vertical text, and if we must use images for it instead of rarely-supported css, it would be better to generate them in wiki-text than by upload. There are LaTeX extensions/packages which can do exactly this but the <math> tag does have them enabled. Talk to the devs. — CharlotteWebb 14:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rendering of LaTeX

Hello, I use a lot wikipedia to read math and science related articles and I am a bit disappointed by the poor representation of the mathematical symbols. When there is an article with some equations one reads the text and all of a sudden one finds these HUGE equations, that looks like they have been written by a kid using a giant font... The same is for matrices. On the other hand when the symbols are inserted in the middle of a sentence the symbols are for some stupid reason slightly smaller than the rest of the text, making the whole thing quite ridicolous. The result is that the articles are really difficult to follow because of the way they look. LaTeX is a powerful tool, and I use it a lot for my papers, but with a poor render is of no use! Does somebody think the same? Bye --Squalho (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important technical question

Does anyone know the link for the image of a PC with a cat in the empty drive bay, caption along the lines of "Everytime someone creates a redirect, Brion kills a server kitten"? I need it to lighten up my otherwise drab and unbearable existence. Since it involves a computer and a dev, I thought this might be the best place to ask, it's probably too tough of an issue for regular users to understand. :) Franamax (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be thinking of Image:Server-kitty.jpg? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the one, thank you. :) Next donation drive, we should all round up stray cats and courier them to WMF. We need to get this problem with server lag solved!
Honest-to-god, I searched for that image for at least an hour. Here's another technical question: the Wikipedia search box sucks!! Franamax (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would a Commons image be listed in Wikipedia search results? Mr.Z-man 00:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See two sections down. :( --brion (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what he thinks of the picture...? 70.187.176.126 (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering getting a poster made for my office. ;) Oh wait, we have an open space plan, I don't *have* an office. :( --brion (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So put it on the ceiling. 70.187.176.126 (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, don't be using colour toner to print that image! Do you know how much that costs? Where's the board members? Let's get some discipline at this org. Anyway Brion, open plan means you already know about all the conspiracies against you. :) And everyone else's medical problems and disobedient children too! :( Franamax (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warn when blank lines in ref tag to help with unclosed refs?

Is a blank line (two consecutive newlines with only optional whitespace between them) uncommon enough inside <ref> tags that Mediawiki should warn when they occur upon preview and/or save, in order to prevent unclosed refs from missing </ref> tags? That is a very confusing situation for our less experienced editors. Would someone who has some experience checking bugzilla see if this request is already in there? Thank you. Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just less experienced editors who find the unclosed ref situation confusing at times! I have no technical knowledge, but I do think anything which helps editors avoid making this very easy (and disruptive) mistake is to be encouraged. DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about a <ref> inside another <ref> (but not inside a {{#tag:ref|}}), or <ref name>, or <ref name="foo>, or <ref name=foo">, or <ref name "foo">, or <ref> </ref>, or <ref>Insert footnote text here</ref>, or even <ref name = “foo”> and <ref ...? Anomie⚔ 00:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! Nested refs are always an error and should be refused, should they not? That seems a much simpler solution but I don't know if it would be simpler code to implement the fix. I must admit I do not understand the part of your comment beginning, "(but not inside...." Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<ref>... <ref>???</ref></ref> doesn't work, of course; it just makes one reference with the text "... <ref>???</ref>". If you really need something like this, for example when you have a footnote that needs a ref, you can work around it using the {{#tag magic word: {{#tag:ref|This is a footnote with a ref.<ref>This is the ref inside the footnote</ref>|group=n}} Anomie⚔ 11:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Search does not tell people how to correctly search for images

Please see the main search page at Special:Search. A previous talk section asked whether Commons images are found with the search engine. I decided to test this and found that the search engine does not find Commons images even though those Commons images show up on Wikipedia.

There is a box to check off for "images," but there is nothing about the fact that this search does not search most images. Most images come from the Commons nowadays, I believe.

Where is the talk page for Special:Search? Can an admin put a link to the talk page from Special:Search? --Timeshifter (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The base issue you refer to is bugzilla:5101; I've added a comment on the current state of the issue there. Special pages do not really have talk pages as such, but Wikipedia talk:Searching may or may not be an appropriate place for some non-technical-specific discussion. --brion (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I read bugzilla:5101 and all the comments. As a test I searched with the Commons sidebar search and found an image right away. Maybe a link to commons:Special:Search could be added to Wikipedia's Special:Search? Along with a sentence explaining that many of the images found in Wikipedia pages can only be searched for via the Commons search engine. Can any admin do this? This may be an interim solution until the Wikipedia search engine is adjusted to search Commons images also. Maybe with a checkbox for "Commons images." --Timeshifter (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such text could be added to MediaWiki:Searchresulttext. --brion (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I copied this thread to the talk page for it, MediaWiki talk:Searchresulttext. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I very much like the idea of adding a "Commons Image" tick box to advanced search. This would entail a search in a cross-wiki db, which evidently can be done, since commons:Image is natively included here. The complication seems to be double results when there is a local image (or talk) page - and this could be either lived with if you ticked both boxes or done internally with "delete from <commons_result> where <img_name> in (select <lang:img_name> from <lang:img_results>)" (or some such, that may be a little Sybase-y). In any case, if people are clicking on the Image tick-box in advanced search, they pretty much wish to search the entire image namespace, which for en:wiki is (en U commons). Franamax (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coord not working

I have added a coord tag to the Queensbury, West Yorkshire article with the following contents

coord|53|46|06|N|1|50|43|W|​display=title|region:GB_type:city

However it appears inline rather than as a title. I posted this on the Help desk where Twas Now suggested that it could be an interraction between this and the {{Infobox UK ward}}, and that this would be a good place to post the problem. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. coord|53|46|06|N|1|50|43|W|​display=title|region:GB_type:city doesn't work, but coord|53|46|06|N|1|50|43|W|region:GB_type:city|​display=title does. Thanks for adding coordinates, and using {{coord}}! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)​[reply]

History preferences

Is there a reason that my preferences to the number of edit lines displayed in a page history doesn't also apply to my contributions list (or to whatlinkshere)? - jc37 11:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me...

Can someone please tell me now how to use twinkle now that it is installed, please and thank you. HairyPerry (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the documentation at: Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle/doc? – ukexpat (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

How should I make {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Announcement-u}} always appear on the bottom of the talk page? -- Tyw7, Leading Innovations ‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) 10:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New templates for user page "trophy cases"

Hi all, I just created two new templates, which make it easier to make the sort of "trophy cases" editors often put at the top of their user pages (i.e., the string of Template:FAstar icons, Good article icons, etc., linking to articles the editor has worked to improve.

The templates are: {{FAstar-userpage}} and {{GA-userpage}}. To see how they're used, look at the top section of my user page.

I haven't made many templates with input parameters, so please feel free to fix 'em up in any way you see fit! Hope this is helpful, and thanks to Cirt (talk · contribs) for suggesting that I post here. -Pete (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice. Needs some documentation though, and maybe put the table in a parent template. — Edokter • Talk • 22:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something weird in diffs

I made this revert - [6]. It clearly shows that I was removing "example.com". The editor who made the edit undid my revert with this - [7]. It clearly shows that what he's undoing is a link to www.bwvh.org. That's not the link I removed. Unless the undo was just a typed in edit summary and not really an "undo" how could he have "undone" an edit I didn't make? Corvus cornixtalk 20:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can click "undo" and then change the contents of the edit box before saving, while keeping the automatic edit summary. I guess that happened here. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course, I didn't think of that. Corvus cornixtalk 21:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace de-indexing

Please see the proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Namespaces_in_Robot.txt to de-index some of the less used talk namespaces from Google. MBisanz talk 21:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unwatchedpages rights?

I can understand why Special:Unwatchedpages is currently restricted to admins only - making it public would give vandals a roadmap to easy pickings. But how about giving access to trusted users who are not or do not want to be admins. Either make it a part of rollback rights (given that somone who has rollback rights is likely to be doing some sort of patrolling and Unwachedpages is yet another patrolling tool) or establish its own rights in a similar fashion. Of course anyone with access to it who vandalises an unwatched page should lose those rights. dramatic (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was proposed recently. You may be interested in that discussion. Mr.Z-man 04:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links provided on edit pages

Why were the links provided at the bottom of edit pages (such as those for redirect, reference listing, etc.) removed? Their removal makes it more difficult to edit. At one point, even the citation link was removed, but quickly put back in its lonesome. How do we get all of them back? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 23:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're all still available if you select "Wiki markup" from the dropdown box that replaced it. And Redirect and ref tags are in the edit toolbar as well. Mr.Z-man 04:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template help (2)

I created {{-•}} which generates a line break followed by a bullet character and non-breaking space. I was wondering if anyone could think of a means of removing the line break when the bulletted item happens to be the first item in a container (such as a table cell). Currently, I switch back and forth between {{-•}} and {{••}}. The only other solutions I can think of require that parameters be passed to the template, but I hope to avoid this as it tends to ratchet up the parser node count. Thanks. SharkD (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to some of the Greek Gods & Goddesses

I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this. Several of the articles on Greek Gods & Goddesses have been vandalised with "YOU ARE A ZEUS!!!!" added to the top. Some examples are Hera, Hestia and Demeter. There may be others. I've tried to correct this but I've failed, so it must be in a template somewhere which I can't find. Can somebody please help? Thanks! --TrogWoolley (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! My browser went funny and I've posted my topic twice. --TrogWoolley (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Vandalism removed by various users. - X201 (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done a bit pre-emptive on previous edit. There was other vandalism but the Zues vandalism was on the actual Diety template. Now cleared. - X201 (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&oldid=239291094"