@Generalissima and i are working on a featured content piece for this issue. we talked about this briefly in the discord with @JPxG - the "start article" button for featured content on the newsroom page doesn't give any pre-loaded content currently, which would be a good thing to fix. we also may do something similar to jpxg's arb report and split it between two issues, as there's a lot to get through for the last 6ish months. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, this link should work in lieu of the "Start article" button: [1].
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That newsroom task template is probably the single most convoluted piece of code I have ever seen on this site. That and the draft template are horrifyingly complicated layers-on-layers-on-layers that only barely work -- I have no idea why that wasn't supplying the & in the URL (since it wasn't actually constructing the URL directly in text -- it was invoking a tag!). Well, anyway, that was the only department that had a preload AND and "editintro", so I just merged the two into one.
Honestly, what needs to happen is that the whole template needs to be rewritten, perhaps with more than one layer, because there is just too much stuff going on in one template, even when you have the seven or eight (!!!) layers of {}{}}}{{}}{}{}}}{{}}{}{{}{}}{{}{} gobbledygook properly indented so as to see wth is going on. jp×g🗯️ 11:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The button for 'Next featured content' works just fine for me, BTW. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read JPxG's comment that you are replying to? He implemented a stopgap measure by removing support for the "edittintro" parameter entirely from the template; and moving the content of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/FC/intro into Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/FC. The actual bug is still unsolved, but if folks can live without such advice in the editnotice (i.e. are fine with deleting it from the preloaded content every time), I think that's an OK solution for the time being.
Thanks for looking into it (even if this fix is obsolete now due to JPxG's removal of the entire parameter).
Just out of technical curiosity though: What's the reason that this "|" was needed here but - apparently - not in earlier versions (example)?
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any links that broke. There were 23 in WLH, but all of the template links were from it being in a bulleted list in the documentation page for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload. The rest were from automatically generated index pages (e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Omni-index, which uses SQL reports and exists solely to make finding pages easier and allow RelatedChanges links) -- none of them are an actual use or reference to the page. A insource search returns some obsolete (not linked to or transcluded anywhere and untouched for about a decade) templates like this and this. It seems extremely bizarre and unorthodox to have an editnotice that's specified as text in a tag invocation in the task template -- we have other editnotices but they don't work like this. The others are at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost -- for health's sake I think that our editnotices should be in the editnotice template, not all of them in there except for one which is randomly at a different page using an entirely different MediaWiki extension invoked through a different unrelated family of templates. jp×g🗯️ 05:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for restoring the history. (Again, while I'm not saying it's equally important to preserve every little bit, in this case it does matter to know that these instructions were authored by Adam back in 2014, for example.)
I do not see any links that broke - not sure how you mean that, e.g. the WLH list currently still points to a broken link from this talk page discussion (which btw provides some additional context on how that intro came to be). And as you indicate, there may be other uses that are not visible in WLH. I seem to recall various prior discussions on this page about disruptions to the Signpost's processes caused by over-eager admins deleting pages in what they considered to be uncontroversial cleanup. In some cases this might have been avoided by simply leaving a redirect in place.
It seems extremely bizarre and unorthodox to have an editnotice that's specified as text in a tag invocation in the task template - I hear you, but is there a more elegant solution for generating those buttons in the newsroom page ? In any case, that kind of convoluted and opaque codebase is yet another reason to tread carefully with non-essential cleanup operations and merely optical improvements, unless one is prepared to check thoroughly that they don't lead to unintended consequences.
Apropos, similar for your recent deletion/move without redirect of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-01-31/Op-Ed[2], which created no less than 1029 broken links (sure, many of them in less-trafficked talk page archives, but on the other hand I suspect that for this story in particular there will also be relevant interwiki and off-wiki links; it was an op-ed of some long-term impact on academic research). I am not taking sides in the beef between you and Chris troutman on whether that should be "Op-Ed" or "Op-ed" ;-) But if you feel the need to spend time on such minor spelling tweaks deep in the archives, at least also spend the time to check that the setting for leaving a redirect is enabled when you conduct the page move.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
50 "Op-Ed"s, 192 "Op-ed"s. It actually doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me -- the only reason I de-moved it was because retitling it killed the pageviews. The pageviews API doesn't move its records to a new title when a page gets moved, so every article that has its URL changed after the fact will end up with 0 pageviews. This is, incidentally, why there remain so many of them with inconsistent capitalization; it'd break links and pageview stats to retitle them now :( jp×g🗯️ 06:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for redirects in article space, there are none -- zero -- they simply should not exist and not be created. There is a lot of stuff that depends on there being a one-to-one relationship between pages in Signpost article space and Signpost articles (most of the exceptions were either ghost articles, which existed at a date and department but had never actually been published, or ghost issues, which had an issue page but no articles). Out of about six thousand articles, there were only a few redirects in the first place, and almost all of them had zero incoming links (although I manually retargeted the ones that did have incoming links when I was fixing them). jp×g🗯️ 10:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for pointing me there! i'll chat with Generalissima ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sawyer777 and Generalissima: are you still aiming to have it ready in time for this issue? Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
realistically probably not, at least on my part. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HaeB: I can finish my part within the next few hours, but that only would include the FAs, not the FPs and FLs. This might be worth splitting anyhow, due to how massive the list is — a smaller FA list will give the FL/FPs in the backlog more time to shine. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agreed - i really like your FA showcase piece, and doing a more comprehensive piece on the rest of the FC promoted in the last 7 months will be more feasible for next issue i think (i will also give a write-up of whatever new FAs are promoted between now & then) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its thirteenth year). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this and aiming to have something publishable in the next couple of hours. (Do we know that the actual publication deadline is likely to be?)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move these up to the appropriate position as required (e.g. adjacent to News and Notes). Copy the section header from the submission page into the |Submission= parameter so that the "Check status" button appears and works correctly.
