Template talk:Good article tools

Dashboard not working (403: User account expired)
The dashboard link is not working. It gives a 403: User account expired error. I sent an e-mail to the contact e-mail a couple of weeks ago but there's been no response. I'm assuming this link is totally dead. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

SUBPAGENAME should be BASEPAGENAME
This template is used on the GA nomination page. For example, XXXX/GA1 where XXXX is the page name. When this template uses  instead of , the tools will actually show the results for GA1 or GA2 and so forth (for example, like . It is not like the peer reviews, where the article is the subpage name. If there is anything I went wrong with, please tell me. I am not a master at templates. Thanks,   TheQ Editor     (Talk) 02:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Active links for disambig and external links
Have updated the links for disambig and external links checker, following Dispenser's update at template:Featured article tools/sandbox. If interested, please check and correct any possible errors. Just a note for clarity: I don't care, why those tools are currently not available on the new server or who is to blame for which failure. My only interest is in having actual working tools for our contributors. If similar WMFlab-tools are verified or finished in the future, they can simply be replaced again. GermanJoe (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Automated tips broken
The automated tips link is currently broken, leading to this page. Anyone know if an alternative location is available? Or shall we go ahead and remove the link? ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 22:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have changed those links for the FAC-templates. Link 1, 3 and 4 in the GA-box could be replaced. See Template:Featured article tools for the new links. Just remember to use the different PAGENAME-value for the GA-templates (see above thread on this page) and to HTML-encode the link string (I had some weird problems with that in my tests). GermanJoe (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Peer reviewer
At present the "peer reviewer" tool is suggesting placing a non-breaking space between numeric values and units, even to the extent of giving an example of using &amp;nbsp; between 3000 and metres. This is contrary to the Manual of Style which requires a non-breaking space only between numeric values and unit symbols: "Except as shown in the "Specific units" table below, a space appears between a numeric value and a unit name or symbol. In the case of unit,,  , or  should be used to prevent linebreak." Until this is fixed, I'll disable the peer reviewer tool from this template. --RexxS (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * RexxS, understood, but this is perhaps 1/100th of the tool, and disabling it "until it is fixed" takes away the other 99% from reviewers who depend on it daily. AndyZ wrote the tool and he wrote most of the original MoS, so this is either a recent change to the manual going against his original or this discrepancy is fairly inconsequential. The "metre" happens to appear in the "Specific units" table. Also, have you done anything to determine who maintains the tool and contact them? If not, naturally your edit has disabled the tool indefinitely. I have reenabled it. Prhartcom (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The requirement for non-breaking spaces only between numeric values and unit symbols is not new and has never been in doubt in the MOS. The reason for using non-breaking spaces is to avoid line-breaks at certain points. This only makes sense when a new line would otherwise begin with something that the reader would find jarring, and that has been the convention since printing was done with moveable type. It's nothing new. There is nothing about words like litres, metres, etc. at the start of lines that would disrupt the flow of reading in the way that abbreviations do. For those reasons, it has never been practice outside or inside Wikipedia to place a non-breaking space between numeric values and full units. Andy Z is simply mistaken and I'm not impressed by an "appeal to authority" in that way.
 * I have more than once recently had to explain the MOS to GA reviewers or nominators who have plastered articles with inappropriate non-breaking spaces. The tool in question even gives "300 metres" as an example in its guidance and this is damaging the encyclopedia, not least by the amount of time spent by editors adding multiple incorrect &amp;nbsp; only for another editor . tells me he's had no success in getting the tool changed, and under those circumstances I can see no alternative to disabling the use of the tool in Good article tools until it is fixed. This tool is taken as authoritative and must not give wrong guidance. I'll re-revert your reversion so that other GA nominators and reviewers don't get the bad advice. It really is ridiculous to be telling editors to break long-standing MOS guidance in Good Articles. --RexxS (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The ideal solution it to fix and upgrade the tool. An alternative is to insert a warning that it is giving inaccurate information/bad advice. Failing this, the tool should be considered for disabling until one of the fixes is possible. If it is doing more harm than good it should be disabled. If it is doing much more good than harm, the people using it should be prepared to take responsibility for any damage, disruption, or wasting of other peoples' time that it may cause, otherwise its use is a severe discourtesy to other users. People using the tool must be made aware of the issues so they can take corrective action. Getting it fixed is the responsibility of the tool-users and those who advocate its use, not the other editors who are expected to follow the advice the tool generates. If AndyZ is still around he should be approached to fix it by the people who consider it useful. One of the improvements which could be requested, is a link to the MoS for each item of advice, so one can check if it is valid and current. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The ideal solution it to fix and upgrade the tool. An alternative is to insert a warning that it is giving inaccurate information/bad advice. Failing this, the tool should be considered for disabling until one of the fixes is possible. If it is doing more harm than good it should be disabled. If it is doing much more good than harm, the people using it should be prepared to take responsibility for any damage, disruption, or wasting of other peoples' time that it may cause, otherwise its use is a severe discourtesy to other users. People using the tool must be made aware of the issues so they can take corrective action. Getting it fixed is the responsibility of the tool-users and those who advocate its use, not the other editors who are expected to follow the advice the tool generates. If AndyZ is still around he should be approached to fix it by the people who consider it useful. One of the improvements which could be requested, is a link to the MoS for each item of advice, so one can check if it is valid and current. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that the Peer review tool is going to be fixed. Many of these third-party tools are not open-source, so a simple amendment to the text generated will not be so simple. I really don't want to re-invent the wheel by creating a corrected version from scratch, so I'm considering intercepting the link from Template:Good article tools to Dispenser's server and inserting a warning notice before passing on the BASEPAGE link to the Peer review tool. I can't see an easy way of doing that using wiki-text, so it would have to be a php page on an external server.

quite rightly makes the point that most of the tool works, and there's no point in further inconveniencing GA reviewers, if that isn't going to put pressure on to get the tool fixed. For the moment, as a work-around, I've restored the Peer reviewer tool link in this template and added a "Peer review erratum" link. Would that be an agreeable compromise until a better solution is found? --RexxS (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Peer Reviewer's source code is terrible (AndyZ admitted as much) and it also does too much. It includes functionality to checking for MoS errors, automatically fixing pages, running the User:AZPR "semi-bot".  It would be best if we rewrote this script with modern JavaScript and MoS rules.  A rewrite means we can solve  problem with the script's wikitext parser.  Or just use  rendered HTML as I did for my MOS:DAB checker (downside:  breakage when output it changed).  — Dispenser 21:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Dispenser, as I said at your talk page, I may be interested in taking this on (although I am not yet positive). If you are interested in pointing me in the right direction, such as showing me the existing script and perhaps also your script that you suggest could be modeled into the new script, then feel free to email me with directions. Prhartcom (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The mosdab_checker used regexes on the HTML which avoided ancillary server calls for red links checking, but a bitch to get right. The syntax was . Probably too simple for non-disambiguation. I'd look for a DOM+JQuery (,   type system for this. Read up on the known problems. — Dispenser 22:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is most helpful, as I had mistakenly assumed that it actually ran its code on an external server. At a quick glance, the JS code really isn't bad at all, but as you say there is a lot of it. I can see where we could patch it to eliminate the problem that I encountered - lines 134 and 340, but we would need to create a fresh version as I'm averse (and unable) to edit code in other editors' userspace. AndyZ has made only 6 edits in the last 8 years (and none in the last 5) so I don't think we'll be able to persuade him to make amendments.
 * Would it be worth compiling a list of things that peer reviewers want from the tool? It seems sensible that if we re-write the code specifically for peer reviewers, then it should focus on what is really needed. Does anybody else have any outstanding problems with the current implementation? Are any vital features missing? I'll try to find time in the next few weeks to scope out a spec, and see if I can make a start on updating what we have at present, unless somebody beats me to it. [Update: Thanks Prhartcom -if you're willing, that would be great]. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * RexxS, where is the code? Prhartcom (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js - Dispenser piped it in his opening line. HTH --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank-you, RexxS, I had missed it. I see you are right, it is at the lines numbers you pointed out. Prhartcom (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I had to set  which disabled image licensing checks and misspellings.  — Dispenser 22:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Dispenser and RexxS, it looks like line 340 just needs to be modified to remove the non-abbreviations from the regular expression and leave the abbreviations. Fairly simple, isn't it? I'm afraid I also do not have edit rights to this page. Dispenser, do you? So, does the front end at homenet.org point back to this script page? Thanks, gents. Prhartcom (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging, as you were able to make a needed update to the script fairly recently. DrKay, can you help us by modifing line 340 in this way? Thanks, Prhartcom (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind, they have not been active in awhile., you are a template editor and probably a much better doctor. :-) Can you help us modify that line? Or shall I write the new line? Prhartcom (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Only admins can edit that script (which I'm not) and yes the script is live. Although I'm willing to point it elsewhere, if that person will continue maintaining it.  — Dispenser 23:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither am I, nor do I have the template editor bit (as Dr. Blofeld and DrKay have, but come to think of it, that probably only works in the Template space, and I see DrKay is an administrator but not Dr. Blofeld; sorry to have bothered you, Dr. unless you really can help). All right in that case, I will write the line and ask an administrator friend to make the modification. May I run the line by you gentlemen first, tho, perhaps tomorrow? Yes, if this works, I could be persuaded to maintain this script in my user space. Prhartcom (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've altered line 134 but am not familiar enough to write the code for line 340 on my own. DrKay (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've altered line 134 but am not familiar enough to write the code for line 340 on my own. DrKay (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Three months later and when I look at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/view/Peer_reviewer#page:Decompression_sickness for example, I still see "Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 1 litre, use 1 litre, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 1&amp;nbsp;litre.", which is simply wrong according to MOS:NUM  as has been explained above. I tried a compromise, while waiting for the text to be amended, by adding an erratum link, but it seems that has now been removed without explanation. I've removed the Peer Reviewer as it is better to give no advice than wrong advice. --RexxS (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 September 2017
Please change the domain from toolserver to dispenser.info.tm. Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please be absolutely specific when making these requests. Did you mean change 'toolserver.org' to 'dispenser.info.tm' or something more? Because both http://dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?page=Good_article_tools and http://dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Good_article_tools are the same destination as at present, except the current version warns that you're leaving Wikimedia space and uses the secure https: protocol. Is there any point in making the change? --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's basically just taking an extra step. It's a double redirect with extra buttons. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know what it is; but I asked you what the point was. So, what's the advantage of bypassing the notice that the reader is leaving Wikimedia space. I assume the devs don't just put those warnings in place for fun. Also, if the target domain changes from dispenser.info.tm back to dispenser.org or to another tld, or even if the dns goes down again, isn't it easier to just change the redirect in a single place than to track down all the pointers to dispenser.info.tm and alter them (and then alter then back if the outage was temporary)? --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. Dispenser told me that the old domain was a free dns, not sure about the new one, but it's likely to stay for a while. Also, me saying is a double redirect is a comparison to wiki, in which we (or more precisely, AnomieBot) fix them. It's just easier for the user. Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. The reason for the last change to the url – which was on 28 August – was "temporary fix while DNS is down", and that was just a few weeks ago, so what's your basis for asserting that "it's likely to stay for a while"? Don't you see that was why I asked the question?
 * 2. The MediaWiki software prevents a double redirect being followed, so we need to consolidate double redirects into a single one. That's absolutely nothing like routing a single external redirect via a popup – there's nothing to fix. It's no easier for a user to arrive at a page directly than through a redirect. Did you miss my question about changing a domain name in one place, rather than tracking down uses all over the wiki? --RexxS (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit ( was made by, which, correct me if I'm wrong, did it because the .homenet domain was down and he thought it would be reused. It won't be for the time being. The only thing with changing the URL is that it's simpler for the user. Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the change on 28 August was to point these links to toolserver.org when the homenet.org dns was down. That allowed programmers on toolserver first to get the functionality running again, and then to redirect the calls from the toolserver to the dispenser.info.tm domain once it was available. Keeping the initial calls on toolserver allows a number of people to fix some problems (such as dns failure), rather than just a single person who has control over an external domain. It also saves having to find and change every instance of these sort of calls when a problem crops up. I completely fail to see how making the change you suggest makes anything simpler for the user. --RexxS (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if the now-defunct toolserver (then moved to tools.wmflabs.org, and recently renamed toolforge) goes down, there won't be downtime of people noticing it. Right now it goes to toolserver>toolforge>dispenser.info.tm. There also isn't a confirmation needed if it's direct. Dat GuyTalkContribs 13:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that a user will find that links like http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py work perfectly well. Have you any evidence that the present servers (no matter what we call them) are liable to go down? Is bypassing the popup warning about going to a third-party site what you meant by "simpler for the user"? If you think that not seeing a warning about visiting a third-party site is a good thing, then your proposed change would at least have that benefit. --RexxS (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that a user will find that links like http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py work perfectly well. Have you any evidence that the present servers (no matter what we call them) are liable to go down? Is bypassing the popup warning about going to a third-party site what you meant by "simpler for the user"? If you think that not seeing a warning about visiting a third-party site is a good thing, then your proposed change would at least have that benefit. --RexxS (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I see this discussion isn't going to go anywhere anytime soon, so I'll just close it as not done. Dat GuyTalkContribs 13:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's any help, you're supposed to have the discussion before making the request per Edit requests. At least you've explored the pros and cons of what you were suggesting now. --RexxS (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 March 2019
Please replace with the current sandbox version (Special:PermanentLink/886717301). This splits the link to the review templates into a different subsection, and more importantly adds links to the review criteria and instructions. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- / Alex /21  12:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 August 2020
Please replace with the sandbox (diff). It changes legacy tools.wmflabs.org links wrapped in plain link to toolforge: interwiki links. I know the links to Dispenser's tools are dead but according to this that may be changing soon so I haven't removed those. Thanks, – Majavah talk &middot; edits 16:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 21:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Somehow, the change broke the links. --George Ho (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They work for me (except for Dispenser's tools, which were broken both before and after this change). Could you link to the page in which they were broken? * Pppery * it has begun... 01:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I may have the same issue at Talk:Milorad Ekmečić/GA1? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The links were already broken on such pages, since the page title was double-encoded, and switching to use interwiki links made them more broken for reasons I don't understand, but fixing the double-encoding seems to have fixed the rendering as well. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Special characters in this template
This tool doesn't work properly if the article contains special characters. For example, creates

If you follow the Copyvio detector link, you'll find it's searching for "Lord" instead of the full name.

The solution is to encode the URL twice, like an onion (pardon my dumb analogy). The first layer is removed by following the link; the second layer is removed by the tool itself. An annoying bug, however, is that this double encoding can produce a string like %2526 (that's the double encoding of &amp;), which is rejected by MediaWiki in certain cases. More specifically, a link of the form  produces copyvios/?title=%2526. I think this is a bug in MediaWiki. I'm not sure how to get around this, besides linking directly like  which becomes Copyvio detector.

How should we fix this? Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 January 2024
I recently wrote a tool, WP:LINKDISP that checks the availiability of URLs being used as references. (It is intended to be a stripped down replacement for User:Dispenser/Checklinks). Would it be possible to add that to the list of tools ?

I also see that the copyvio tool (which definitely works and is online) is commented out, maybe that should also be restored ? Sohom (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Also outside of these two, maybe we could add other tools/links? Given the current emphasis on non-drive-by nominations, the Authorship tool would be a good candidate ? Sohom (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to adding tools, perhaps earwig should be added as well. CMD (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 April 2024
Per the conversation above, please replace the content of the page with Template:Good article tools/sandbox. Regards. Sohom (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The External links tool in the template doesn't seem to work properly. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 14:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It should work on legitimate articles (for example: link-dispenser/analyze/Cross-site leaks). Tbh the architecture is a bit fragile, but I think I've fixed most of the issues wrt to it's fragility. Sohom (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @MSGJ I appear to have messed up the encoding for all the tools, could you remove the  calls (Template:Good article tools/sandbox should be the corrected version) Sohom (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)