Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia. Bug reports and feature requests should be made in Phabricator (see how to report a bug). Bugs with security implications should be reported differently (see how to report security bugs).

Newcomers to the technical village pump are encouraged to read these guidelines prior to posting here. If you want to report a JavaScript error, please follow this guideline. Questions about MediaWiki in general should be posted at the MediaWiki support desk.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ) (see also: Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical)
Click "[show]" next to each point to see more details.
If something looks wrong, purge the server's cache, then bypass your browser's cache.
This tends to solve most issues, including improper display of images, user-preferences not loading, and old versions of pages being shown.
No, we will not use JavaScript to set focus on the search box.
This would interfere with usability, accessibility, keyboard navigation and standard forms. See task 3864. There is an accesskey property on it (default to accesskey="f" in English), and for logged in users there is a gadget available in your preferences.
No, we will not add a spell-checker, or spell-checking bot.
You can use a web browser such as Firefox, which has a spell checker.
If you have problems making your fancy signature work, check Wikipedia:How to fix your signature.
If you changed to another skin and cannot change back, use this link.
Alternatively, you can press Tab until the "Save" button is highlighted, and press Enter. Using Mozilla Firefox also seems to solve the problem.
If an image thumbnail is not showing, try purging its image description page.
If the image is from Wikimedia Commons, you might have to purge there too. If it doesn't work, try again before doing anything else. Some ad blockers, proxies, or firewalls block URLs containing /ad/ or ending in common executable suffixes. This can cause some images or articles to not appear.
For server or network status, please see Wikimedia Metrics.
« Archives, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181

RfC: should the "Authority control" template continue to include MusicBrainz identifiers?[edit]

Should {{Authority control}} continue to include MusicBrainz identifiers? 08:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Basics and technicalities

The {{Authority control}} template, usually found as last of the navigation templates at the bottom of Wikipedia articles, lists a series of internally linked authority control systems, each followed by an external link to the identifier for the topic of the Wikipedia article in that system. These are international systems of one-of-a-kind unique identifiers which as well distinguish topics with a similar name, as that they identify the preferential name for a topic within a system. Example (using Bibliothèque nationale de France identifiers):

MusicBrainz is a WP:USERGENERATED website, which has separate pages on various music-related topics. The URL of each page ends on a multi-digit code, which works similarly as an identifier in an authority control system, e.g.:

Wikidata is the international authority control system of Wikimedia projects (including Wikipedias in all available languages, Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, ...). It is recognised by other international authority control systems, e.g.: VIAF 71578307 links to Engelbert Humperdinck (Q55010). Likewise, MusicBrainz's page on the composer (see link above) links to that same Wikidata item. The Wikidata item on the composer is not accessed directly from the {{Authority control}} box at the bottom of the composer's article: the Wikidata item on the composer is accessed via the Wikidata item link in the left margin of the article (which is always present, whether or not the {{Authority control}} box is placed).

By default, an {{Authority control}} box placed in an article retrieves its content from the corresponding Wikidata item, that is: the box lists and links the authority control records of the systems accepted by the template (see list of tracking categories), when the corresponding Wikipedia item contains a value, a.k.a. property, of such an external authority control system. Values for external links in the box can be overridden locally, but once a value for the property has been defined in the Wikidata item, the listing and linking of the external authority control system can not be omitted from an {{Authority control}} box once it is placed in an article. For clarity: the RfC question is not about omitting authority control identifiers from Wikidata, but on whether or not MusicBrainz identifiers should be kept as tracking categories in Wikipedia's {{Authority control}} box.

Previous (much broader) RfC: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 148#RfC: authority control (Dec. 2018 to Feb. 2019: came to no conclusion about the MusicBrainz identifier which at that time was already included in the {{Authority control}} box).

Previous related discussions: Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 21#MusicBrainz (May-June 2018; "external link" aspect, discussion without formal closure: did not result in a change w.r.t. acceptability of linking to MusicBrainz pages as part of an "External links" list). Around the same time proposals regarding a selective display of some authority control identifiers, while omitting others, was extensively discussed at Template talk:Authority control/Archive 7#Suppressing local display via null parameters – without resulting in anything.

Last discussion on the topic (leading to this RfC): Template talk:Authority control#MusicBrainz


  • No – my main reason for this stance is the over-all low quality of too many MusicBrainz pages linked from Wikipedia (examples can be given if needed – in the preparation to this RfC I asked if *anyone* could give me an example of a good, or at least decent, MusicBrainz page, which remained an "unanswered question"); Note that that previous argument is about the *actual* low quality of these pages, not merely about their WP:USERGENERATED status, which is of course a further argument; Further the BBC website does not seem to link to Wikipedia via MusicBrainz very often any more (only one example where they currently do could be given in the preliminary talks, after I had already given a counterexample); Further, the argument that Wikipedia should link to MusicBrainz mainly for its "authority control" characteristics does not outdo Wikipedia's policy against organising linkfarms (WP:NOTLINKFARM – keep links such as MusicBrainz in the Wikidata system where they can be accessed after one click from the Wikipedia article); The actual MusicBrainz identifiers are *longer* than what is displayed in the authority control box, respectively "artist/30060b66-4ed3-47a5-89d7-cb4f13437441", "artist/62c28bc0-f696-4c50-8e54-5f8e9120bdb8" and "release-group/18d4abd6-580d-45f1-8ba6-1d2bb1ad245f" for the examples given in the "Basics and technicalities" summary above: in other words the MusicBrainz system is not *actually* an Authority control system unless these longer names are used, and currently the MusicBrainz identifiers are already considerably longer than those of other identifiers in the authority control box; I would be open to any system that defaults to "no MusicBrainz" in the {{Authority control}} template and allows local override for those who checked the corresponding MusicBrainz page as being decent enough to link from Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    • The claim that "the BBC website does not seem to link to Wikipedia via MusicBrainz very often any more " seems to based on a basic misunderstanding of how the BBC use Musicbrainz, and as such is a straw man argument. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
      Illustrating by an example, Pini di Roma (a composition with a Wikipedia article):
      ... which illustrates that BBC does not link to MusicBrainz very often. In fact, I couldn't find a single BBC page on a composition that links to MusicBrainz (although such pages usually link to Wikipedia). Note that it is also not possible to get from the MusicBrainz page on the Pini di Roma composition to the BBC page on the same topic. BBC pages on a composer seem to link to MusicBrainz more often... but such pages usually link to Wikipedia way higher on the page than where they link to MusicBrainz. The whole rationale of MusicBrainz pages being some sort of authority control system which brings Wikipedia and BBC nearer to each other seems, to say the least, a bit exaggerated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No. The template should link to a small group of reliable, high quality, relevant, non-commercial, non-wiki databases. Even without things liks musicbrainz, it has way too many useless links (for enwiki readers) already, links from national libraries which are not in English and not in a language or country relevant for the subject, but which happen to be an authority control. Links which are added by default should be very, very limited. Wikidata is the perfect location to function as linkfarm for all these, from the truly authoritative to the near-junk ones (Quora?); enwiki should restrict this to much less than we have now, and excluding things like the wiki Musicbrainz is a good start. See for example Odilon Redon, French 19th century artist, not a musician by any stretch: there are 28 links already in the authority control template there, including musicbrainz. Such linkfarms don't help our readers one bit (e.g. [1]), changing this to a select, limited group of truly useful links would be a serious improvement. Fram (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No, although referred to as an open encyclopedia, Musicbrainz has lots of user generated content and I don't think it is actually a reliable source. Also we're not a link farm Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 10:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No – A lot is user-generated and therefore not a reliable source. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No, per all the rationale given above.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No Low quality, user-generated "data" and completely circular (copies the Wikipedia article for the subject). It has no business being in an authority control any more than IMDb does, in fact less. Voceditenore (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. Firstly, I'm very disappointed in the amount of misinformation that has been used in this discussion and the preceding preliminary discussion, so I'll start with a point-by-point rebuttal of all the arguments presented in the previous comments.
    • Francis doesn't give any examples of low quality pages; "quality" seems to be subjective and undefined in his comment. The two most sensible ways to measure quality in this context would probably be completeness and correctness; most similar databases cannot achieve the former to begin with, and MusicBrainz does not frequently contain errors (contrary to Francis's implication). For example, if you go to the page for an artist like The Carpenters, data exists for multiple releases of all their studio albums, as well as a large number of their compilation albums, with information for each track on each release and tracks on multiple releases being deduplicated where necessary (that is, they all have unique identifiers). The data is incomplete (since it does not contain all of their singles and does not contain the information about every release or the full credits of every single recording and composition), but it isn't wrong, and the latter is a more useful measure since it would be unreasonable to expect a music database to be complete.
      • I would also note that all the examples that Francis was actually able to give at Template talk:Authority control#MusicBrainz were invalid because they were apparently dependent on misunderstandings of the user interface. In my second reply to him there I responded to those examples.
    • Why is it relevant that the BBC doesn't link to Wikipedia via MusicBrainz? It's largely a red herring because it confers no reliability either way.
    • The length of the identifiers is completely irrelevant to their reliability and I'm surprised that it was even mentioned. {{Authority control}} usually takes up less area on the page than the infobox (even with dozens of identifiers) and is much less noticeable. If someone actually wanted to complain about the format of the links they had years to do it before this RfC.
    • The identifiers are unique both with and without the prefixes, because MusicBrainz assigns 128-bit UUIDs randomly and they are expected to be unique over any vaguely reasonable timeframe (collisions are not expected until about 1015 IDs have been generated). I don't know if the software actually handles collisions, but it should be unnecessary for some millions of years. Removing the prefixes in no way makes MusicBrainz less of an authority control (although there are certainly better reasons to argue that it isn't).
    • Manual checking for MusicBrainz links is not necessary, because the site has not been demonstrated to be uniquely unreliable among the websites linked to in {{Authority control}}.
    • MusicBrainz is one of many databases in the AC template and does not by itself usually make a significant difference to the number of identifiers, unless there are no or only a few other identifiers (in which case it's obviously not clutter). If {{Authority control}} needs to be downsized then that can be achieved with a much broader RfC; removing MusicBrainz – or any other individual database – would do basically nothing to address the issue. The links to national libraries are irrelevant to this discussion. (This appears to be Fram's only argument?)
    • The fact that MusicBrainz is not a reliable source is irrelevant to its inclusion in the template, even though some AC databases can be treated as reliable secondary or tertiary sources, because the template hosts external links and not sources. The template does not have any policy- or guideline-defined inclusion criteria that do not apply to any other templates; even if the links to MusicBrainz are removed from {{Authority control}}, the MusicBrainz-specific external link templates will still exist and will continue to be used.
    • The fact that MusicBrainz quotes Wikipedia articles (automatically, through a caching system based on MusicBrainz's links to Wikidata and Wikipedia) has no bearing on whether or not it should be used in the template. It is primarily for the convenience of MusicBrainz users, and it does not affect the site in a way meaningful to its inclusion in {{Authority control}}. Jc86035 (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • (continued) Now that that's out of the way, this is why I would actually support the continued inclusion of MusicBrainz.
    • Firstly, there are no policies or guidelines which apply only to {{Authority control}}, which in terms of the applicable policies and guidelines can be treated primarily as an external link template. As such, since MusicBrainz external links will continue to be allowed regardless of the outcome of this RfC, there are no policy- or guideline-based reasons to disallow MusicBrainz links specifically.
    • MusicBrainz is sort of an oddball in the AC template, being the only website with user-generated content. However, this is not in and of itself a reason to remove it, because its inclusion can otherwise be justified, and the template does not have any guideline-defined inclusion criteria (other than those which were set by the previous RfC, which left the inclusion of MusicBrainz as an open question).
    • The purpose of {{Authority control}}, and AC in general, is to assign unique identifiers to entities. MusicBrainz generally accomplishes this, although this is obviously not unique to MusicBrainz. MusicBrainz identifiers, especially those for artists and works, are generally stable. In cases where there are duplicate entities, the older entity is usually the one retained. Additionally, artist identifiers are automatically removed after a week if they do not have any relationships to other entities, which means that they are always minimally identifiable; and MusicBrainz has a version control system which requires multiple users to agree for certain changes (including all destructive changes, such as merges and deletions).
    • There are several online databases which assign identifiers to musical works and associated entities, MusicBrainz being one of them. However, MusicBrainz is somewhat unique in seeking to create unique identifiers (whereas e.g. AllMusic does not clean up its duplicate track identifiers) and actually attempting to relate/link them in a structured manner. MusicBrainz is also by far the most comprehensive one to have a copyleft license, and likely as a result has many reusers of its data, the BBC being one of them. (The reason that the BBC gets mentioned in these discussions is that it directly uses MusicBrainz's identifiers and relationships as part of its content and URLs on a prominent part of its website.)
      • MusicBrainz's status of being the primary copyleft database in its field is somewhat similar to OpenStreetMap's status of being the primary copyleft map database. Although OpenStreetMap is also decidedly not a reliable source, it has nevertheless been used significantly throughout the Wikimedia projects, most notably in WikiMiniAtlas, GeoHack, and Kartographer and Kartotherian. The data of both projects has also been used by numerous third parties outside the Wikimedia projects.
    • There are several ISO identifiers for musical works: ISRC, ISMN and ISWC; these respectively correspond to MusicBrainz's recordings (one-to-one), works (not one-to-one) and works (one-to-one). (The AC template already links to an ISO identifier, ISIN.) However, using any of them in {{Authority control}} would likely be worse than using MusicBrainz, because their data is largely limited to products that were still being sold after the early 1990s, because ISRC and ISMN identifiers would rarely correspond one-to-one with Wikipedia articles, and because the primary ISWC website does not allow for direct links to identifiers. Furthermore, Wikidata's coverage of MusicBrainz is much broader than its coverage of these identifiers, so switching to another database would almost certainly result in a reduction in coverage. There are also no direct ISO analogues for the other six MusicBrainz types which the AC template currently uses.
    • While it's arguable that the AC template doesn't need any coverage of music-specific databases, it also doesn't necessarily need to link to any of the other databases that it links to. Additionally, it's often the case that MusicBrainz is the only existing identifier shown in {{Authority control}} for many pages (particularly albums) as a direct result of being the only domain-specific music database in the template.
    • In conclusion, MusicBrainz has a number of unique attributes due to its position as the primary copyleft music database, and its inclusion in {{Authority control}} can be justified due to those factors as well as the difficulty in being able to use a comparable amount of data from other music databases of comparable quality in the template. Jc86035 (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. Per Jc86035 - Premeditated (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - Jc86035 makes a lot of sense here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No per Fram and Voceditenore. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - per Jc86035. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No - in the ones I’ve seen, the link to MB has not generally offered worthwhile content. Sergecross73 msg me 03:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Sergecross73: Do you have any examples in mind? (I'd also note that this is, strictly speaking, supposed to be more about the identifiers than the content.) Jc86035 (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes per Jc86035 who makes a good case for its inclusion and refutes the arguments presented against it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes Per Jc86035 and more. There are two significant misapprehensions in this and prior discussions; which through previously refuted reappear here as misrepresentations. Firstly, the point of including an identifier in {{Authority control}} is not to cite anything - so that the link might fail WP:RS is immaterial. Secondly, the point of inclusion is not to provide "worthwhile content" - the links after all, are not in the "External links" section, so WP:EL does not apply. The point of inclusion is to assert authority, in the sense used at Authority control; in other words to verify identity and aid disambiguation. And for that purpose MusicBrainz is perfectly good. more than good, in fact; it is so well-suited to the role that - among many others - the BBC - an august and well-scrutinised public body - use it for that purpose. Furthermore, for many musicians and ensembles, it is the only external identifier that we have. As such, its removal would be disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    Maybe have a bit more trust in the sister project that handles authority control across Wikimedia projects? Wikidata's authority control files are trusted by VIAF, Library of Congress and whatnot. Every Wikipedia page is linked to its authority file, so that should be enough for the authority control aspect, no? Maybe add a few that have authority control files on a broad range of topics in the {{authority control}} box, but I don't see a problem with authority control being handled at Wikidata exclusively for those topics that pass GNG, but are not listed by any of the other broad authority control handlers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    Where did I say anything about not having trust in Wikidata? You attempt to put words into my mouth: don't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes As an aggregate. And per Jc86035's extensive and careful analysis. Many of the arguments presented are red herrings since they apply to RS; this isn't meant to be a RS for content inclusion. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, it’s an aggregate where people may well be searching, and has the unique identifiers that lead users to the right person, and so on. I concur that this isn’t a RS issue, it’s merely a locator. Montanabw(talk) 19:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes for appropriate subjects, No for inappropriate ones. I just came across a MusicBrainz entry for Grafton, New South Wales, something called a "MusicBrainz area ID" (d:Property:P982 – just look at the examples there!). The material for Grafton found at MB is unsurprisingly poor; it's simply a poor mirror of Wikimedia data. The music-related material at MB is often poor, but it's also often the easiest available such link in many articles, so there is some value. To me, the most annoying thing about it is the huge number. Reducing that to something like "MusicBrainz: ...4059a" would lessen its visual pollution. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Michael Bednarek: The reason that places are in the database is to link them to artists and creative works, so most of the interesting data is actually in the other tabs and not the landing page; e.g. Grafton is linked to five artists who have lived or performed there. Jc86035 (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    ... four of whom are thoroughly non-notable, and two of the three most famous singers from Grafton are not listed there. I think that's an indication of the generally poor quality of MB material. I've stricken my Yes above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes: MusicBrainz is very much in the spirit of Wiki(p|m)edia, and providing pointers to find more free/libre non-commercial content is a good thing. The external link policy should really be clarified to emphasize that. The situation's the opposite when it comes to non-free/non-libre/commercial services: Template:IMDb, Template:Google books, Template:Infobox_YouTube_personality, and similar are all grossly inappropriate corporate native-advertising spam, even if their creators are acting in good faith: those need swift and thorough eradication from the encyclopedia. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)|TalkContributions 22:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


  • May I ask why VPT was chosen for this RFC? It's definitely not a technical issue. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    Templates, and {{authority control}} is a template, are usually associated with the technical VP. The template is also programmed in Lua (Module:Authority control), which can only be changed if one has "technical competence" type of access permissions. Also, during preparation of this RfC the venue for the RfC was discussed, in which I defended VPT: see explanation there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    I don't accept any of that. You seem to have been the only person in favour of VPT as the venue. In short: what the heck is this doing here, why is it not at Template talk:Authority control? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    Oh, and while we're about it, it's not showing properly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies (or any of the others), so you could make a case for VPT being the venue to request an explanation as to just why the RfC isn't showing in the listings, but people usually post questions like that to User talk:Legobot, User talk:Legoktm or Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, where I explain the problem yet again. Hint: the RfC statement is not brief enough - that {{collapse top}}/{{collapse bottom}} won't help either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    That's a different matter, and would be glad with some assistance (that is, without changing the layout too much). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Would someone please delete this whole RfC so it can be posted at WP:VPR or somewhere else. VPT is not the place for a 30-day RfC, particularly when it's not a VPT issue. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    This is not the first RfC here, e.g. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 175#RfC: Alteration of Account Creation Limits/Account Creator Rights, and as said, Lua templates are a technical topic. If you don't want RfCs here, see to it that it is documented somewhere clear, and that you have a consensus on it before implementing. As for this RfC, it would imho be disruptive to move it now. I could agree with an early closure (2 weeks or so), that is: if the !votes continue to be more or less unanimous as they do now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
    The issue is not with RfCs here in general. The issue is that RfCs should, as far as is practical, always be at the venue most applicable to the question being asked. This RfC question is about the content of a template, and so would be most appropriate at the template talk page or a project (talk) page relevant to that content. It would be appropriate here only if it was asking about technical aspects, e.g. of implementation but that the content in question is hosted on a lua template is completely irrelevant to the question being asked. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
    See preliminary discussion: the previous RfC, which led to indecisiveness on the topic brought here, was "village pump" level, and holding an RfC on a topic that tries to outdo what was resulting from a previous RfC can hardly be held at a less visible place, in order not to be perceived as a more WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. And again, during the preparation process the venue was discussed. There were enough technical people following the discussion that could have brought any argument to initiate it elsewhere (the only suggestion to hold it elsewhere was given without rationale). So, I am sorry, and apologise for the inconvenience (although I see no explanation *why* it would be inconvenient), but oppose moving a well-prepared RfC elsewhere. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
    The inconvenience is that those watching this page for actually germane discussions will be distracted by an irrelevant one. --Bsherr (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Notifying the participants in the preliminary discussion who haven't commented yet: Nikkimaria, Tacsipacsi, Pigsonthewing. Jc86035 (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I've moved the thread below out of the Survey section since it's tangential to the RfC. Jc86035 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    Re. The Carpenters: if you'd think a good external link, I'd prefer it to be displayed thus:

    The Carpenters discography at MusicBrainz.

    in an "External links" section, than as a mere linked code number (MusicBrainz: 4580d83b-093e-4241-91fb-2dd71f5f1f3f) in the authority control box. Further,

    The Carpenters at Muziekweb website.

    may be a better alternative in an external links section, for several reasons: e.g., data compiled by librarians (better than WP:USERGENERATED); record sleeves shown (without potential copyright violation issues, while a public library website); etc. Note that this website also has unique identification numbers, authority control style (what else would one expect from librarians?) More importantly, it is free-access, so in that sense certainly not less than MusicBrainz. This website is also publicity-free, at least more so than MusicBrainz which links to quite a few commercial websites. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Francis Schonken: Muziekweb only has one Wikidata property at the moment, Muziekweb performer ID (P5882), which is only used on 14,000 items (whereas MusicBrainz artist ID (P434) is used on 203,000). It also doesn't seem to have any data analogous to MusicBrainz's release groups, recordings, instruments or areas, and only has work/composition data for classical compositions. In terms of the breadth of data, it seems to have only about 300,000 albums/releases based on the highest used album IDs (an order of magnitude less than MusicBrainz's 2.5 million). While it certainly would be useful in its own right, its data isn't as well-interlinked as MusicBrainz's is because there isn't as much structural support for it. Jc86035 (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    None of which is relevant for The Carpenters, i.e. the example you gave. I say that, on average, MusicBrainz has low to very low quality. The numbers you give only seem to illustrate that: it has "quantity" written all over, not "quality". Fine-tuning an external links section starts, on almost any Wikipedia article, with weeding out cruft. In too many cases, the MusicBrainz link would be part of the cruft that can be thrown out on sight, and if not, like in The Carpenters' case, it can likely be replaced with something better (which I illustrated – Muziekweb of course not being the only free-access music-related online database which offers good quality). All of this illustrates that we should *not* have a MusicBrainz link willy-nilly when the article has a standard authority control feature. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Francis Schonken: Could you explain clearly how you think the Carpenters' page on Muziekweb is higher quality than the MusicBrainz page?
    In response to the reasons you gave in the previous comment:
    • Why would MusicBrainz be more prone to copyright issues? Neither site owns the copyright to the albums that they describe. Furthermore, because the Internet Archive hosts MusicBrainz's cover art, MusicBrainz is arguably less likely to be directly affected by copyright issues.
    • In MusicBrainz, the cover art is shown on the pages for the releases (but not the release groups, since the cover art for different releases can be different). I believe there is a user script which also shows them on artist pages.
    • It does probably help that their site is maintained by librarians, but that doesn't by itself make the site better for authority control. As aforementioned, their data is inherently less suitable for the AC template due to issues such as not having unique identifiers analogous to works and release groups.
    • Linking to commercial sites doesn't invalidate a database, and Muziekweb also links to YouTube and Spotify in any case.
    I also don't see how that was irrelevant to the example. Muziekweb doesn't have unique identifiers for any of the Carpenters' works or albums that would be directly analogous to the Wikipedia articles or Wikidata items, so the AC template can't link to the albums/releases unless counterpart Wikidata items are created and support is created within the AC module for using the data on the Wikidata items for editions of publications. Jc86035 (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    The Carpenters @ Muziekweb page has images; Carpenters @ MusicBrainz page has no images. → advantage Muziekweb
    • WP:USERGENERATED websites, such as MusicBrainz, are more easily liable to have copyright issues than websites by public bodies such as public libraries. → advantage Muziekweb
      • FYI, Internet Archive *has* copyright issues, so "Internet Archive hosts MusicBrainz's cover art" shoots in its own foot.
    • I was speaking about "sleeves" (i.e. front & back of the sleeve), which Muziekweb has systematically for all recordings; that is not the same as "cover art" (i.e. front side of the sleeve), which is what MusicBrainz seems to have exclusively for the pages I saw. → advantage Muziekweb
    • What are you going on about Muziekweb in the {{authority control}} template? I said MusicBrainz should be OUT of the AC template, while it may be acceptable as an external link in some cases, e.g. with the {{MusicBrainz artist}} template; I proposed Muziekweb as external link, i.e. outside the {{authority control}} box, as a viable replacement for such MusicBrainz link placed outside the {{authority control}} box. So I'm not going to reply to things I didn't suggest.
    • Re. "Linking to commercial sites doesn't invalidate a database" – another strawman: if given the choice between a website that carries publicity (e.g. MusicBrainz), and one that doesn't (e.g. Muziekweb), we'd normally prefer the latter (per, e.g., WP:LINKSTOAVOID, which has nothing to do with the "validity of a database"). → advantage Muziekweb
    --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    If you aren't proposing that Muziekweb should be used in {{Authority control}}, it's not relevant to this discussion. Both sites are currently already allowed as external links (by default) and are not going to be disallowed by this discussion, because that's not how you defined the RfC. I'm not going to respond further in this part of the thread since it's clearly off-topic and the arguments that you've presented have no relevance to the AC template. Jc86035 (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • To respond to an argument put forward by Jc86035 and others: as an external links template AC is subject to WP:EL. The bar for inclusion/exclusion is not "this link is never ever appropriate"; it's rather "in the majority of cases where this identifier exists, would its inclusion meet WP:EL"? The fact that it meets EL in some specific cases is a minimum standard but not sufficient for default inclusion in 125k articles and counting. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: Yes, but then the burden of proof (per WP:NOCON) falls on those in favour of the change to demonstrate that a majority of the links are not appropriate. I imagine this could be shown if it were the case, e.g. by random sampling of the links, but "inappropriate" would have to be well-defined in this context before this could be done. For example, if a page is out of date because an artist is known to have died and they are unintentionally stated to be living (which I imagine happens occasionally), would that be considered inappropriate under WP:ELNO's second criterion?
    A careful reading of WP:ELNO would suggest that the vast majority of MusicBrainz's artist pages would be acceptable. MusicBrainz provides unique, interlinked identifiers and other data/links, which means criterion 1 doesn't apply for most pages; even if the data is incorrect, criterion 2 doesn't necessarily apply because it's not intentionally misleading; criterion 12 doesn't apply to MusicBrainz because it's well-established; and so on. Jc86035 (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    Jc86035, NOCON states "In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them". ELNO would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis; I don't agree with making blanket statements given the variety in page contents. For example, in the case of Jan van Eyck, the major content provided by the MusicBrainz link is a mirror of Wikipedia, which fails ELNO12. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: (I previously updated my comment to remove the mention of NOCON. Since you reverted it, it stays.) I would disagree with that assessment of the Jan van Eyck page – the reason that his entity exists in MusicBrainz is for the completeness of the release Deinós Nekrómantis, which the relationships tab on his item links to. (A slightly modified version of part of his work Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych is used on the album cover, it seems.) That album doesn't have a Wikipedia article, so Wikipedia doesn't contain that information.
    This also doesn't make sense as a test to apply to authority control databases, because the reason we're linking to them (particularly the non-domain-specific ones) is for the identifiers, not the content. Even an individual VIAF entry could rarely be said to contain factual information not in a Wikipedia article aside from self-referential data. Jc86035 (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    To your first point, that's a reason for the van Eyck page to exist on MusicBrainz; that is not a reason it meets EL on Jan van Eyck. We're not here to decide what should happen on the MusicBrainz site, but whether we should include that site in this external links template. We're also not here to discuss more broadly the value of the AC template in general, but whether this specific link warrants inclusion per our guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: ELNO12 can't apply to any individual MusicBrainz page; it only applies to the whole site (per "open wikis"), and for all intents and purposes MusicBrainz is established enough (although it's not really a wiki). Could you explain why you think ELNO1 applies to the page?
    • Is the relationship to the album insufficient?
    • Is the unique identifier insufficient?
    • Is it an issue with the cached Wikipedia content? What if it were not present? (The content is shown automatically, and removing it would necessitate the removal of both the Wikipedia and Wikidata links.)
    Jc86035 (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    Specifically the second part of ELNO12: "Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked". The van Eyck entry at MusicBrainz is primarily a mirror of the Wikipedia article. If the Wikipedia content were removed then ELNO12 would not apply, but the link still wouldn't warrant inclusion at Jan van Eyck per EL. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: Are you seriously suggesting that the entirety of MusicBrainz is primarily a Wikipedia mirror or that the item primarily exists for the purpose of being a Wikipedia mirror? It's not even a deliberate editorial choice, and it doesn't even show the entire article.
    Anyway, the reasons that authority control sites are linked to (which matter in this context and can't be dismissed just because the RfC is specific to MusicBrainz) would generally fulfill at least one of ELYES3, ELMAYBE3 and ELMAYBE4. (Additionally, the reasons listed in WP:EL seem to be written with the intent of being applied to pages with prose or media, and not databases, which might hinder their applicability.) Jc86035 (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    No, I'm seriously suggesting that this particular entry is primarily a Wikipedia mirror. It doesn't particularly matter whether that's by editorial choice or automatic. If you'd like to go propose changes to EL that are tailored to databases go ahead, but as written MusicBrainz does not blanket-meet the criteria you outline. It might on particular articles, but what we're currently discussing is whether we should automatically include it on a wide range. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: ELNO12 only refers to sites as a whole, not individual pages. (In the interest of completeness: A mirror of Wikipedia is a site which has deliberately copied every article, which MusicBrainz hasn't done. MusicBrainz editors don't change the Wikipedia content after it's cached, so MusicBrainz isn't a fork of Wikipedia either.) Jc86035 (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    [citation needed] Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    Referring to what? Jc86035 (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    The claim that ELNO12 only refers to sites as a whole. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: ELNO states: "[…] one should generally avoid providing external links to: […] Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." I'm not particularly familiar with the guideline, but my understanding of it is that the quoted text as written refers only to entire websites (since a single page would not be considered a mirror or a fork of Wikipedia). Only 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 16, I think, could be considered to refer to individual pages on third-party websites. Jc86035 (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    The text you quote does not specify entire websites. It's quite possible to mirror a Wikipedia article on a single page of a site, and for that single page on the site to not be an appropriate external link on that article. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Pigsonthewing: In the interest of clarity: I'm not entirely sure if it's appropriate to claim that WP:EL doesn't apply to {{Authority control}} at all, since it would mean that that one template would be in a class of its own separate from references and general external links. WP:EL is silent on the matter, and I don't know if there has been consensus on whether or not the guideline applies in this case. (Although, technically, linking to the Wikidata statements instead would resolve the issue entirely, since the template would link to Wikidata regardless through the pencil.) Jc86035 (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Combining RandomInCategory with PAGENAME[edit]

I'd like to create a link to a random level 4 vital article. However, it's not as simple as using Special:Randomincategory, since Category:All Wikipedia level-4 vital articles goes to the talk page, not the article itself, and I can't get Special:Randomincategory to play nice with {{PAGENAME}}. Help? {} talk 00:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately you can't do that with just core mediawiki, but you could do it with a user script or an external tool. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: In that case, would there be an easy way to set up a category that duplicates Category:All Wikipedia level-4 vital articles but goes to the page itself instead? This is for this conversation, so using an individualized or off-wiki method isn't really an option that I can see. {} talk 05:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Bumping thread. {} talk 09:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yes, but just because it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea. A bot would have to maintain the category, or it would quickly fall out of date. A default gadget or &withJS link would be a better long-term solution than a bot. The best solution of course is to add the desired functionality to MediaWiki: for that, phab is thataway. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: I'm not sure I fully follow. What are you suggesting the phab ticket be? {} talk 05:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: I'm not sure it's a good idea to suggest filing a Phab ticket as the primary solution, because this is not going to be used relatively often (so WMF staff won't be assigned to work on it) and there are already longstanding unfulfilled requests to improve access to MediaWiki-generated data which have been stalled for years mainly because of the architecture of MediaWiki being prohibitive (for example, phab:T49137, for Lua access to Special:PrefixIndex, has been open for five years). Furthermore, if it were proposed for the next Community Wishlist Survey, I don't think it would reach the top ten because this affects a relatively small number of editors in a relatively minor way. At the moment, I think an external site, a bot or a user script is probably the way to go. Jc86035 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
In this case, best = most complete. A bot-based solution would be most likely to break without anyone noticing and creates a duplicate category that would go out of date. Using a tool or on-wiki JavaScript would mean reimplementing the behavior of Special:RandomInCategory (phab:T63840) or sitting in front of it. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: Yes, but the point was that it was unrealistic to expect something better than those in the short term, not that those would be good solutions. Jc86035 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber and Jc86035: returning to this, I think I found what might be an easier solution. I was curious how the "All Level 4" list was created/maintained in the first place, and it looks like it's done through {{Vital article}}. There's some fancy code there creating/defining the categories, and that could probably be tweaked so that it created one category for the VA's talk page and one for the VA itself. I'm not skilled enough with categories to mess with that, though. If someone else wants to take a go, feel free. A set of buttons that allow you to go to a random article at a given importance (VA level) or quality (GA or FA) would be a really useful tool for readers, potentially even for the main page. {} talk 20:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
That template is only transcluded on talk pages. Templates can only categorize pages they are transcluded on. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I think it would be a good idea that special pages like Randomincategory had an option so it returns the main page, the talk page, or either. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@NaBUru38: That would be good. And it might be easier to implement than getting Randomincategory to be able to return subpages, which would be the other way to solve this. {} talk 19:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
It would be really easy to make a toolforge tool to do this. Bawolff (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Bawolff I'm looking to create a button that could potentially go on the Main Page, though, so I'm not sure how useful an off-wiki tool could be for that. {} talk 08:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
(1) Proposals to change the main page rarely succeed (2) I don't see why an off-wiki tool couldn't be linked to from the main page; the Swedish Wikipedia even links to a Toolforge tool from the sidebar. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Why are signatures not added automatically in talk pages.[edit]

One of my first memories from using wikipedia is somebody adding my signature through some kind of {} template and asking me to add it in the future. So I ask the question, why are comments in a talk page not automatically signed? I think it's a good case study for wikipedia's lack of rules set in stone. My explanation is that most software contains rules that are imposed by the developers, the company, the code. On wikipedia communities implement rules either by social means or by third party automation that have the same interface and privileges as regular users (bots). This would serve to avoid biasing wikipedia in favour of those with technical acumen.

Thanks for your attention, Tomás — Preceding unsigned comment added by TZubiri (talkcontribs) 06:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Well that was ironic. Elizium23 (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. It's an unnecessary little complication in a system that has complications galore. And yes, I am omitting rather than forgetting the four tildes for this reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talkcontribs) 07:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Users can edit the whole page, some parts are not "comments" on many pages, and some edits should not be signed. Wikipedia:Flow is an alternative discussion software with clearly defined posts and no manual signing but it's unpopular and not enabled at the English Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thankfully. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Off topic: I for one like Flow (random example), but only dislike how it takes up so much space. Would be great if it could use up less [vertical] space, probably by reducing the header size, and maybe move the username to the beginning of the posts... Hopefully someone would start an RFC on why they don't like Flow, and perhaps it would be first steps of enabling it here. Rehman 12:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe having a notice when saving the page, that could be disabled using preferences, like the one that comes up when you don't enter an edit summary (if it's enabled), could be useful for new users. BrandonXLF (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Tomás, the Talk Pages Project is developing a reply system that automatically signs and indents, and is designed to fit with existing wikitext structure and prevailing social conventions. It's available as a beta feature in French, Arabic, Dutch and Hungarian wikipedias. (Checking that link, I see they’ve just released version 2.0!) You can still do section edits so it’s not an on/off choice like Structured Discussions (Flow).
[Shh, don’t tell anyone, but it seems you can use v1.0 on en-wp by appending ?dtenable=1 to the URL. The "dt" stands for Discussion Tools which is the MediaWiki extension that implements this. It should create a "Reply" link after each post, similar to the ReplyLinks script. I’m doing it right now. ;)]
Pelagicmessages ) Z – (21:03 Thu 28, AEST) 11:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm really loving the Reply tool.
Anyone who's interested should please put WP:Talk pages project on your watchlist (and maybe even occasionally nudge me to update it – let's see, it basically works, version 2 is on the Beta Cluster if you know the secret ?dtvisual=1 URL code, and we still don't have a date for when it might be available as a regular Beta Feature here). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Why does it put an EL (Reply) into the tag? Can't it use the normal Wikilink syntax (Reply)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It looks like a normal link on my screen? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Editor interaction analyser issues[edit]

Hey you techies, I'm seeing problems at the Editor interaction analyser, and I'm not quite sure where else to report it. I don't think Σ (Sigma) is very active anymore. This search, should have indicated that Dhashwanth Kumaran edited Aranmanai 2 and Velayudham, but did not. Any ideas? I'm not savvy in the world of Phabricator or whatevs, but this is a tool many of us use. Help? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, it's because when the form is submitted the username is sent as Dhashwanth+Kumaran, but it's stored in the database as Dhashwanth_Kumaran, so this works but your search doesn't. BrandonXLF (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@BrandonXLF: Actually, yours didn't work either--or at least not from my perspective, as Dhashwanth did edit at least two of the articles that come out in the results. The user has been indeffed--could that affect the tool's performance? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, when I started a new search between "Dhashwanth_Kumaran" and "Fishdash" per your suggestion, there were zero hits. When I did it the normal way "Dhashwanth Kumaran" and "Fishdash", I got the two intersections at the articles indicated above. So it looks like there could be something wrong with searches in excess of 2 users. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb, now your original search seems to be working. BrandonXLF (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Weird. It healed itself. It's the miracle we all needed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm having problems with it too. I ran it with multiple editors, and it reported out one editor with 4 edits to a certain article, when the article history lists them as having 341 edits. Since I was trying to compare Master 1 + socks with Master 2 + socks, unreliable data meant I couldn't report out accurate results. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The run was [2] and the results for Camille Paglia and Frederic Crews were both wrong. Others may have been as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Firefox can't display infobox images in the preview of pages[edit]

Hello, here on Debian 11, Firefox 68.7 ESR can display images in the "Page previews" feature only if those images are hosted by Commons, but the images whether free or non-free, which are hosted on Wikipedia (en and other languages) are not shown in the pages preview. I don't know about Google Chrome or Chromium, it can be tested for example on Patrick_Swayze#Film and Category:1990s crime thriller films. To Ahunt: Hello, if you have latest version of Google Chrome or Chromium installed on a Linux system, please check them for this problem and report their status, thanks.--Editor-1 (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry don't have either, but I can tell you that the page previews, including the images, work for images on both Commons and Wikipedia on Firefox 76.0.1 on Lubuntu, so I suspect it must be an issue with either the ESR version of Firefox or something in Debian. - Ahunt (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Works fine on Debian 10 with Firefox 68.7.0esr on WSL. There is never a popup for categories when using Page previews and the page image at Patrick_Swayze#Film is hosted on the commons. Try Cadillac, the page image is hosted on the enwiki. BrandonXLF (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@BrandonXLF: "There is never a popup for categories when using Page previews" It is wrong, the feature I am talking about is located at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering under Reading preferences:
"Page previews (get quick previews of a topic while reading a page)"
and it works also in categories, my problem is that non-free infobox images, e.g. films articles, are not shown in the pop-up/balloon when using Firefox on this system.
"Page previews and the page image at Patrick_Swayze#Film is hosted on the commons."
just its infobox image is hosted on the commons, not the listed films.--Editor-1 (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Editor-1, I see what you mean, I thought you meant the links to Patrick_Swayze#Film and Category:1990s crime thriller films weren't working, not the links on those pages. Do you have any specific links that don't work for you? BrandonXLF (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@BrandonXLF: Sir, as I said "non-free infobox images, e.g. films articles, are not shown in the pop-up/balloon when using Firefox on this system" and it applies to all the articles that have a non-free image in their infobox.

Not someone else have this problem?!--Editor-1 (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any scripts or extensions installed in Firefox? Those can sometimes cause unpredictable effects. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Fetch the Infobox data of "Software latest version" and "Software release date" from an item in Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Hi there,

I have an idea for the Software and Operating system Infoboxes, but I should discuss it for its possible bugs and side effects here.

What do you think about fetching the "Software(or OS) latest(preview) version" and "Software(or OS) release(preview) date" data from Wiki Commons items(WikiData)? In the following Infoboxes


As such this is the case for "Repository" URI item.

I should note that "version" and "date" is a frequently changing item, and this idea has the advantage that with one change in this (WikiData) item, all Wiki Infoboxes (in all languages English, Dutch,German, Persian, Arabic, Chinese, etc.) change at once, only by a single change.

Are there any problems (or bug producing) with this idea?

Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: You should ask this question at Template talk:Infobox software and/or the talk page for the OS infobox as the question is social, not technical. --Izno (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Izno: Thanks for your guidance, I asked my question here: Template talk:Infobox software#Taking more data from wikidata
Yours faithfully, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove comma from citations over 1000[edit]

I noticed here that, when references go over 1000, they take up quite a lot of space in a way that makes text harder to read. Part of the reason for this is that they include the optional thousands comma. I'd like to propose that we get rid of that comma, but I have no clue where I'd do that, so coming here. {} talk 06:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I wasn’t sure what “references” meant until I looked at the article. It refers to citations. And wow, I never thought I would see over 1000 citations in a single article. This just shows how much attention this topic is getting.
Back to the point, I notice that the citation list at the end of the article does not include commas in its numbers, when I view it in my web browser. That’s because it is rendered as an HTML ordered list, which means it’s up to my browser to render the numbers however it likes, and my browser doesn’t include commas. I assume this is true for the other mainstream browsers. So removing the commas won’t just save space; it will increase consistency. Brianjd (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
It's odd to have the commas in the citations[1,009] and not in the reference list. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Brianjd: If you think COVID-19 pandemic has a lot of references, go check out List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign non-political endorsements (kinda ironic that that's our most-referenced article, given all the good it did her ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). Anyways, back to the matter at hand, does anyone know where we go to sort this out? {} talk 08:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
My guess is that in needs to be fixed in MediaWiki. Brianjd (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll copy this over there. {} talk 09:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I've created T253743 in Phabricator. rchard2scout (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Simple template for x days after date[edit]

Can someone make a quick template that, given a number x, returns the date x days from now in D-M-Y format? Thanks, Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 06:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you really need a template? If it's just for a few uses then you can use mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions##time directly. {{#time:j F Y|+10 days}} gives 11 June 2020. If you want another date format then clarify it. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
PrimeHunter, thanks, having never realised that this existed. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 08:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"Add/edit links" link not working?[edit]

I just created a new article and I was planning to check if it had any interwiki links. However, the "add links" link on the left toolbar isn't appearing on my end. Checking using a random new page from Special:Newpages gives the same result. What's going on here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  • @Narutolovehinata5: I see “edit links” if interwiki links already exist, or nothing if they don’t exist. I don’t know what I am supposed to see, as I have never used this feature. Brianjd (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
That's the problem. If no interwiki links exist, nothing appears when in fact an "Add links" link should be there. Apparently it's already being tracked by Phabricator at least, but the error appears to have existed for at least two weeks now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
You can search Wikidata manually at A search on the Japanese title of She Professed Herself Pupil Of The Wiseman gives (Q60996787). I assume it works to add it there. This in your common JavaScript will give a Wikidata search link under "Tools":
mw.loader.using(['mediawiki.util'], function () { mw.util.addPortletLink( 'p-tb', '//' + encodeURIComponent( mw.config.get('wgPageName') ), 'Wikidata search', 't-wikidatasearch', 'Search the page name in Wikidata', null, '#t-wikibase' ); }); 
PrimeHunter (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
That did the job, although I had to purge the page for the interwiki link to appear in English after adding it. There's still the problem though of the issue not being fixed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
There is already a fix, it should be deployed tomorrow. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I meant Thursday. However, the Deployment Train is blocked again for an unrelated issue, deployments will resume when issue is fixed, meaning the fix will be deployed Friday at the earliest. phab:T253022. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit links works for me, but not add links. Also hoping this will be fixed soon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed this as well, hope the fix will be deployed soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a log of DS alerts?[edit]

I'm suddenly finding a lot of new or returned editors editing Falun Gong articles and have been giving alerts out like candy (including to the experienced ones who have reacted of course). I haven't kept track and have no idea how many other editors have given out alerts. Is there anyway of finding out? If there isn't, there should be IMHO. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: All alerts are automatically logged in the system by an edit filter, see here. --qedk (t c) 14:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@QEDK: sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant alerts for specific areas. We really should have a way of knowing these numbers. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I believe that was the old system? It just caused things to go out of control and hundreds of alerts were being logged, resulting in huge pages. --qedk (t c) 14:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller, I put together to show DS/GS alerts over time. It works by parsing added_lines on filter hits from Special:AbuseLog/602. It's not exactly fast or efficient, but there's not really a better way to do it since abuse filter variables aren't accessible on the Toolforge replicas. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: that looks very good, thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Unable to delete[edit]

For the past 10 minutes I have been unable to delete a page. I am getting various errors like "Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties. Try waiting a few minutes and reloading." and also "Database locked. A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software." — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Is there an error code with the db locked message? DannyS712 (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
MSGJ, A fix was just deployed, can you check again please? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes it just worked, thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Some interwiki links are invisible[edit]

I've been seeing an issue lately with interwiki links that contain a language code: certain variations don't render. Has anybody else noticed this?

I see it in safemode, with different skins (incl. mobile web) and editors, and on different wikis (WP, Commons, MW incl. in Structured Discussions).

Pelagicmessages ) Z – (21:58 Thu 28, AEST) 11:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The invisible links are interwikilinks to Look in the far left column of this page (desktop view) and find 'Français' You will see that it links to fr:chat. If you want the link to appear in article text, use a colon before the language code.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, facepalm. I know about the colon for links to categories, if I knew about it for language links, then I’d forgotten. Thanks, Trappist the monk! Pelagicmessages ) Z – (22:09 Thu 28, AEST) 12:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • For the benefit of other readers: The reason those “invisible” links are visible here is because someone added a colon to them. That someone was actually a bot, which recognised that those interwiki links were invalid. Brianjd (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
For the benefit of other readers: [[fr:Chat]] is an interlanguage link to French Wikipedia, which goes to the 'Languages' section, whilst [[:fr:Chat]] is a visible interlanguage link in the wikitext. --CiaPan (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
It's covered at H:ILL and I had a bad time trying to explain it at WT:Namespace#Explain the effect of initial colon. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Can't upload ogg fair-use file from my mac using File Upload Wizard[edit]

(I'm running macOS Catalina 10.15.5 on a MacBook Pro.) When I click the <choose file> button on the File Upload Wizard page, ogg files on my hard drive appear greyed-out (non-uploadable); cf. my jpg/jpeg and pdf files are accessible as normal. I tried recreating my desired ogg file using Audacity s/w but still had no luck uploading it. Birdman euston (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Birdman euston: could you try via this link: Special:Upload? — xaosflux Talk 19:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey, my ogg files are now accessible. Thanks! Birdman euston (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

CSS issues[edit]

WP:ITSTHURSDAY; the sidebar seems to have collapsed and the tabs are gone. (Firefox 73.0) Enterprisey (talk!) 19:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Enterprisey, Yup. Same here (Chrome-mobile) ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Same. (Chrome 81.0.4044.138, Windows 10) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Win Chrome desktop. The "Read/Edit/New section/View history" tabs are tiny and in the far upper right corner. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Fixed for me now, rollback seems to have worked. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Enterprisey, had the same issue until a minute ago. (Edge Chromium 85.0.528.0, Windows 10) andritolion (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it Thursday?[edit]

Screen Shot 2020-05-28 at 3.16.55 PM.png

I just stated noticing that many pages are rendering with the left-hand nav bar all scrunched up. See attached screenshot. Not every page, but most pages. Emptying my browser cache had no effect. Thursday? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Section combined with above. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

All views except main page corrupted[edit]

Moved from Talk:Main Page: —⁠andrybak (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The main page displays ok but all other pages have corrupt headings and left sidebar. Downsize43 (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems to have come good now. Downsize43 (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I suspect that this is related to the mw:Desktop improvements project. They've put some of it up at the private The rearranged the logo in the corner a bit. At first, I didn't notice it, but when I did, it was really obvious ...for about four or five days. Now I don't notice it again. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


Left menu without languages (after Print/export). But:

left menu with languages (after Print/export). Oleg3280 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Category populated by templates[edit]

Category:M N is to be merged to Category:Articles using MbLg magnitude scale at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 8 but it is utterly unclear how it's populated and what needs changing to enact the merge. Can anyone find the problematic entry? Timrollpickering (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Timrollpickering, Seems like it's Template:Earthquake magnitude, there's also a lot of categories in that template that have similar undescriptive names. BrandonXLF (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
More details at the requested move discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I've managed to fix them all. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

character rendering ignores the zero-width joiner[edit]

The zero-width joiner can be useful sometimes, but WP ignores it. E.g., for Marshallese, el-cedilla should have the same shape of cedilla as cee-cedilla does. WP, like word processors, substitutes el plus combining cedilla with the Unicode el-cedilla, which by default has a comma shape for use in Latvian. Separating them with a ZWJ should prevent that from happening, and in a word processor it does, producing the proper letter shape for Marshallese. But on WP it makes no difference. Compare ⟨ļ⟩ () with ⟨l‍̧⟩ (l‍̧). Can that be fixed? — kwami (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you use the actual letter character ( ļ ) instead of all of that code? It should work fine. If the letters display properly at Marshallese language#Orthography, they should display just fine in any article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Titles starting with hash/number sign/octothorp[edit]

Per WP:NCHASHTAG, my understanding is that titles cannot have <#> in them for technical reasons, hence "Number 1 Record" and "Action Comics 1000" but I just came across #2 ¡Una mas! which uses the full width character. What should I do here? Should this be moved to "Number 2 ¡Una mas!"? Any thoughts? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 23:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, all other such pages are redirects: Special:PrefixIndex/#. Most relevant examples are various spellings of #Sukinanda and #willpower, which redirect to articles with the hatnote {{Correct title|...|reason=hash}}. Their history links to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 26 § #willpower, which seems to be the most recent relevant redirect discussion. #2 ¡Una mas! should be moved to Number 2 ¡Una mas!, with the hatnote added. —⁠andrybak (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Andrybak, thumbs up emoji. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


Here has suddenly stopped, and now just tells me "Looks like you are using an ad blocker!" etc. Any idea why? ——Serial # 06:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Just tell your adblocker not to run on the site. Works for me with adblocker disabled. SD0001 (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: A lot of ad blockers don't like strings like "pageviews" in URLs as they think they're being used for tracking or serving ads. The easiest solution is to turn your ad blocker off on that page. --Deskana (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Deskana and SD0001: Thanks both. Yes, of course; I was really wondering why its suddenly decided to do this when for the last few week its been no trouble at all, with no hint of a problem with adblocking... ——Serial # 10:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Add "cancel" button to page move dialogue[edit]

Often when I am moving (renaming) a page, I get to the move dialogue Special:MovePage/<whatever> and realise I have to reconsider or check something first. However there is no "cancel" button on that page and I am left with only the alternative of using the browser "back" button and hoping that nothing is left half-done. It would be nice if a "cancel" button was present beside the "move page" button. Zerotalk 07:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a link to the article being moved at the top of Special:MovePage, a cancel button would just do the same thing as that link. BrandonXLF (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Nothing can be "left half-done", since Special:MovePage is no more than a form - nothing is actually done until you click Move page. So if you navigate away before clicking that button, whether by using the "back" button, a cancel feature or by following a link, the worst that can happen is that you may have to re-enter the information when you return to the form. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes I know all that, but you are missing the point. This isn't to reassure me, since I figured it out long ago. The purpose is to make it more friendly to editors in general. Think about the "cancel" button you see when editing a page; that is also not strictly necessary but having it is a good thing. Zerotalk 09:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Zero0000: this would be a mediawiki side button, not an English Wikipedia specific one. The development team rejected this in phab:T5835 but that was over 10 years ago, so they may have a different UX/UI mindset now. You can comment at that task, and try to have it reopened/reevaluated. — xaosflux Talk 14:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank button seems to randomly open a new page[edit]

Is there any way I can control this behavior? Doug Weller talk 09:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, is this page the Special:Thanks page? If it is, then from my testing I think this is the reason:
The thanks button in the history page defaults to opening Special:Thanks. The behaviour of the sliding animation with "Publicly send thanks?" after you press "thank" is implemented through JavaScript, so only works after the page has loaded and run the script. I don't know of any way to make the thanks button only work when the script has run, but I guess the best solution for now is to wait until the page has fully loaded. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 10:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: weird. I much prefer the times when I stay on this history page and just get asked if I want to thank the editor. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Culture of region[edit]

Could the template {{Culture of region}}, which is supposed to be on the right side of an article, be fixed so that it allowed to have pictures on the left side? E. g. at Religion in Botswana the picture from the History section is pushed down below the template Culture of Botswana, although one is on the right and the other on the left. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Jan.Kamenicek, this is due to the positioning of image 'BAPS Swaminarayan Hindu Mission'. Either move that below the images on the left, or use {{stack}} to make one right floating item out of the 3 separate items on the right. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks very much for the advice. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Heading not rendering?[edit]

In Draft:Photography in Washington D.C.#Fine art photographers in Washington DC, 1967-2000, the third sub-heading is rendering as a literal ===C=== instead of being shown as a heading. The markup looks perfectly normal to me. Any clue what might be going on there? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, I tested on another wiki with the same content and the same thing happened there. ·addshore· talk to me! 20:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
There were some spaces after the last equal sign. BrandonXLF (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Yup, evil spaces, ·addshore· talk to me! 20:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Page not loading correctly[edit]

I removed a spam link from Advertising revenue here, but now the page won't load correctly – it appears to be loading a 1x1 gif. Yet if I load load the page via the index here, it works! I've tried bypassing my browser cache, and purging the server's page cache. What is happening? Thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 06:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

All your links work for me. Did you bypass your cache with Ctrl+F5 and not just F5? PrimeHunter (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I used Ctrl+Shift+R in my browser (FF 76.0.1). I even cleared the browser cache, but the page still won't load. All other pages I've tried load normally. —Bruce1eetalk 07:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I've just done a null edit (via the index link), but the page still won't load correctly for me via its direct link. —Bruce1eetalk 08:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Does it work in safemode or if you log out? Is it possible your Firefox has an ad blocker which confuses the whole page for advertising? PrimeHunter (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I tried when I'm logged out, and in safe mode – no change. I am using an ad blocker, but it's turned off for Wikipedia. Advertising, for example, display correctly. —Bruce1eetalk 08:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Interesting that the safe mode version has the same problem, since it has a different URL. You could try using the development tools to get more information, using a private window or restarting Firefox in safe mode. Brianjd (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oddly enough, it loads correctly in Private Browsing (not logged in and pages aren't cached). Yet when I tried it when logged out in Normal Browsing, it wouldn't load. Could it be a caching issue in my Firefox? I did clear the cache completely earlier. I have also shut down and restarted Firefox. —Bruce1eetalk 09:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s not a caching issue, since you were able to reproduce the problem with a different URL. I would suggest investigating your add-ons further. Brianjd (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I've just tried it in Firefox safe mode (addons disabled), and it worked. So there's clearly an issue in my local Firefox environment that I'll have to sort out myself. It's just so weird that it is only happening on this one page, as far as I can tell. Anyway, thanks Brianjd and PrimeHunter for helping me out. —Bruce1eetalk 09:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Good luck, and I look forward to you reporting the solution here when you find it. Brianjd (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Block, but twinkle doesn't send message[edit]

Resolved: No idea why it failed three time, but it worked the fourth time--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to block an editor. User talk:Habelgmsa

I've tried three times, but no block message appears. Any thoughts on why not?S Philbrick(Talk) 14:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I unblocked, because it would be rude to block and not leave a message.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Seeing that I was able to drop a message just fine, the issue is not with Twinkle, have you checked the "Add block template to user talk page"? Furthermore, you can always add a new section and paste in the template yourself (such as {{subst:uw-pblock}}), that's much more viable than unblocking. --qedk (t c) 14:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
QEDK, I've never had this problem before. I see "Add block template to user talk page" and it is checked. I tried again, and of course it worked fine now. so not sure what happened the first three times. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
No pressure, if it happens again consider leaving a note at WT:TW. :) --qedk (t c) 05:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Song recordings produced by Glenn Sutton[edit]

For some unknown reason all the members of this category appear under A, and apparently are similarly affected in other categories they appear it (but not before I created this cat). Can't see any obvious reason for the problem. Can somebody help? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: I've made an edit to {{Lynn Anderson singles}} that should fix it once the job queue has caught up. I've made a null edit to one of the articles, and that is showing under "F" now. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Glendon Campus of York University[edit]

I'm confused about something at Glendon Campus of York University. A COI editor changed the name of the article today. On the article page there is a notice "A request that this article title be changed to Glendon Campus of York University is under discussion. Please do not move this article until the discussion is closed." However, the article was moved, and the notice on the talk page says "The request to rename this article to Glendon Campus of York University has been carried out". These messages contradict. Shouldn't the article be moved after a consensus to move? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a VPT matter. However, the article and its talk page were moved at 17:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC) by Glendonws (talk · contribs) who had started the discussion at Talk:Glendon Campus of York University#Requested move 29 May 2020 less than 24 hours earlier. The pages should really be moved back and the discussion allowed to proceed normally. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Addendum: I moved it back to Glendon College. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm. It looks like the page move concerned was the very first action taken by Glendonws after becoming autoconfirmed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I thought something was wonky. Thanks for your help! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk page subsections hidden on mobile, apparently[edit]

Are talk page subsections (level 3 subheadings) intentionally hidden on mobile? If so, why? And is there anything we can do about it other than by promoting the heading level, as Nixinova (talk · contribs) did in these edits. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a clear bug. Can you please file a Phabricator ticket? Jdlrobson (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
On mobile, the talk pages show all top-level headings to be dropped down, and have no table of contents or anything. It's the same as with articles, just differently styled. Talk pages shouldnt have important content in subheadings otherwise I have to scroll like hell to get anywhere. A table of contents button on mobile is very well overdue, anyway.  Nixinova  T   C   19:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Nixinova, you can show the TOC on mobile by adding this CSS to your common.css .skin-minerva .toc, .skin-minerva .toc .toctitle { display: table; visibility: visible; }. There's also phab:T147026. BrandonXLF (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"Search Wikipedia" missing page titles[edit]

Can anyone else reproduce this thing I see today (on desktop, with both Firefox and Chrome), where searching from the top right-hand bar on any enwiki page (including the Main Page, but not including shows no bolded autocomplete results for "2018 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina" even when you type/paste the whole title? The page exists, but you would never know it from autocomplete until you hit Enter/clicked the magnifying glass icon. Airbornemihir (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It's the same for me. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 181#Possible issues with search function and phab:T253114 are similar but about recent articles, and they do show up after the complete title is typed, e.g. 2006 LNBP season. 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina got the title in December 2018.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

reFill glitch[edit]

Hello. The reFill site is having difficulty with filling in AllMusic references. Thank you! Caro7200 (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Success - Refill tool - Davey2010.png
Hello Caro7200, Can you explain what the problem is or what happened when you used the script?,
If you saw the message "success" (see right picture) then this means nothing needed doing for that article, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah sorry misunderstood what you meant, Good job MarnetteD spotted this! (Thanks M! :)). –Davey2010Talk 20:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
This thread might be relevant Template talk:AllMusic#Set field question. Numerous of our articles have Allmusic templates as a ref ({}) [1]. As you can see this renders as a bare url in the ref section
Editors see this and slap a "link rot" tag on the article. But, since the ref is actually in a cite template both refill and reflinks ignore it. The fix is to change the "pure_url=yes" to "pure_url=no" in the template. You will see at the thread I linked to that I asked if the default could be changed to no to avoid this problem but the conversation petered out with no change being made. Now Caro7200's post might be about something different and, if it is, in the immortal words of Emily Litella "never mind" :-) MarnetteD|Talk 20:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to both. Well, I noticed it on 5/30. I use reFill pretty much every day, often with AllMusic refs. The little red error box appears. Reflinks will still fill the url. If I see it again, I'll note more specifically what the problem is. Caro7200 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It's just the little red "could not fetch page" error. But it only just started the past few days. Caro7200 (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
That can happen Caro7200 with various refs not just Allmusic. AFAIK what you describe happens with refill not reflinks so we might be confusing the tools. I am not sure what is causing it so hopefully another editor can fill us in. If you've used both tools and they haven't worked you can also try Citer. There is the occasional ref that no tool will fix and you just have to deal with them manually. MarnetteD|Talk 16:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh yeah, thanks, I meant that it has only started happening with AllMusic the past few days. It happened again today. Just seemed to be a new problem in regard to reFill specifically, thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Search for unicode punctuation?[edit]

Is there any way to search for uses of specific unicode punctuation? I'm looking for edits that contain U+201E ('DOUBLE LOW-9 QUOTATION MARK') as part of a sockpuppet investigation. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried searching for insource:/„/ like Help:Searching#Search string syntax suggests? It seems to work for me. —Cryptic 17:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Cryptic, Yup, that works. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Naypta#Cassiopeia's archives[edit]

Moved from WP:ANI: Davey2010Talk 19:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Naypta#Cassiopeia's archives. Interstellarity (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The correct forum for asking technical help questions is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate and Davey2010: My apologies for posting to the wrong forum. Just a quick question and I don't want to seem like a beginner on Wikipedia. How do I know which forum is the best place to get help with Wikipedia? Interstellarity (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Interstellarity, Please read the above introductory bit on each board which explains what each board is to be used for, If you're stuck you're more than welcome to ask at WP:Help Desk who may be able to point you in the right place, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Thank you for your explanation. I think the help desk seems to be the best place to start if I'm not sure where to go. They can probably direct me where to go from there. Interstellarity (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Cassiopeia, Naypta, and Interstellarity: This seems to have been sent around various talk pages (unrelated user talk pages, ANI, VPT, and apparently HD) - but since I can't find it at HD, I'll try to explain here. But first, please note: when you have a query about the actions of a bot, your first port of call should be the talk page for the bot concerned, even if it redirects to another page, perhaps the talk page of the bot operator. In this case the bot is ClueBot III (talk · contribs) and its operator is Cobi (talk · contribs).
When CASSIOPEIA (talk · contribs) was renamed Cassiopeia (talk · contribs) back in March, and the user, user talk and archive pages moved accordingly, the |archiveprefix=User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive parameter of the {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} should have been amended as well. But apparently this didn't happen for some weeks, so in the meantime, ClueBot III was at something of a loss to work out which archive was the current one. I'm guessing that it's trying all archives until it finds one that hasn't yet hit the limit set by |maxarchsize=75000. I'm a bit puzzled as to why |numberstart= seems to be stuck at 1, when I think that it should now be at 45. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Naypta, Interstellarity, Redrose64, Davey2010, and NinjaRobotPirate: Greetings. Thank you guys for helping and try to solve my achieve issue. I understand Naypta has info ClueBot III of this issue at Discussion at User talk:Naypta#Cassiopeia's archives and I hope the issue will be solved soon. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Hey, yep, this has been doing the rounds everywhere - I only spotted it the last time it came to AN. As Cassiopeia notes above, I've left a message at ClueBot Commons already, before Interstellarity noted the thread at ANI and it was moved here.
As regards |numberstart=, the indication here is that it's the default archive start number, which seems like it ought to be left at one. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Any way to change or suppress a keyboard shortcut for this script?[edit]

I recently installed the script User:P999/Toggle VF.js, which creates a narration-friendly version of a page suitable for download. The problem I have right now is that the keyboard shortcut to create the page, Alt+⇧ Shift+V, also happens to be the shortcut for editing in VisualEditor. Is there a way to alter or suppress the shortcut for this script? I looked at the code but can't figure out where it defines the shortcut combination. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, it's the line var prntVF = mw.util.addPortletLink ( 'p-coll-print_export', '' + currpgName + '&printable=yes', "Printable VF", "p-VF", "Voice-friendly version for printing [v]","v");, specifically the "v" (see Help:Customizing toolbars), you can alter it by changing the letter to the desired key and you can remove it by removing the argument completely. BrandonXLF (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
BrandonXLF, thanks! I tried to give it the shortcut Alt+⇧ Shift+B by substituting both instances of "v" (one in quotation marks, one in square brackets) with "b", but it didn't seem to work. I'm fine with that, as my original shortcut for the VisualEditor has been restored. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu, normally the shortcut doesn't include shift, so Alt + B should work. BrandonXLF (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Resolved. BrandonXLF, thank you so much for your help; this solves my problem and makes it convenient for me. As a little nugget that I would like to store away in my head for future reference, what causes the default shortcut to take Alt+⇧ Shift+V instead of Alt+V? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Pageview stats down[edit]

I've just noticed that the pageview stats are down for yesterday. They also seem to have missed a few other days prior. Would this be able to be fixed and the views for the missing days be displayed please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed User:BernsteinBot has been having issues for a couple days getting its daily edit counts. It doesn't look like replication lag is terrible right now (<5min), but I wonder if those two issues aren't interrelated somehow. VanIsaacWScont 07:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Isn't it normal that yesterday's page views haven't been added this early? The article has around 3 daily views so the 0 on May 28 and 29 is plausible. All other tested articles show views those days. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Normally it's done by now. But you can see there is erratic reporting so it looks to me like there's a problem with the tool. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal (WMF): --Izno (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems to be working now providing you just look at the one day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit with external CI Tools[edit]

Recently I have set up a github project that contains a script to edit Wikidata. I would like to use the CI website Travis CI to perform the edits as a CRON job. However, I ran into the problem that the IP address of Travis seems to be blocked as external proxy. Of course I wanted to perform the edits using my account, but it seems there is still somehow the access with the IP involved. Now my questions are:

  • Is it possible to use Travis CI for edits in Wikimedia projects and somehow circumvent the global block?
  • If not, does the Wikimedia infrastructure allow to set up and run CRON jobs, e.g. using the Wikimedia Cloud / Labs tools infrastructure?

Steak (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I am fairly certain Cloud VPS/Toolforge can do as suggested. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
You basically have two options: Request local and global IP block exemption for your bot account, or run it from Toolforge. Toolforge supports recurring cron jobs both on the grid and in Kubernetes. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Template issue rendering[edit]

Template:Internet Archive film

Hi! This template has been unchanged since 2016, but doesn't seem to be working. The Green Promise has *{}, which should render as a link to, but instead it's directing to, and titling the link as Green Promise The Green Promise. Thanks for your assistance, -- Zanimum (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Zanimum: Fixed after staring at the template documentation for a while. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much, John of Reading! -- Zanimum (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-23[edit]

22:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)