Wikipedia talk:Village pump (technical)/Archive 1

Finally a topic about the technical village pump
Having a quick look over the topics on this talkpage very few actually relate to what they're meant to: discussions about village pump technical. I can easily see the problem as editors are used to discussing things in on talkspace and not in what seems like where the article is. I proposing deleting this page and replacing it with a redirect to the main page. In the occasional event that we need to have discussions which are not technical related but about the discussion page, I see no reason why we can't have them at Village pump (technical). — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh... never spotted that. However, it does show that this page serves a demand: technical discussion about Wikipedia (who reads headers anyway?) Having said that, why not move the discussion about the Village Pump to Wikipedia talk:Village pump (meta)? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 00:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's not really enough traffic to justify all these talk pages. Why not redirect them all to WT:Village pump? That seems to work fairly well for the reference desk. Algebraist 00:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a pretty active board, and a lot of technical discussion is very usefull. This one shoud defenitely stay, and the header should be changed to reflect it's usage. Even the main VP page states this should be used for technical discussion (without specifying about what). — Edokter  •  Talk  • 00:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, WP:VP says that WP:VPT is for technical discussions. This page, WT:VPT, is for discussion of WP:VPT, and this is the 29th thread in more than four years, and many of them were misplaced. Algebraist 00:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Crap... leave it to me not seeing the "Talk" bit! I never said anything. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 00:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree with redirecting all the VP talk pages to one central talk page. Mr.Z-man 01:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it. It would hopefully simplify things. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 01:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If we redirect all these talk pages to one talk page, then we get all these confused messages there instead. That's not an improvement. Instead I think the original suggestion by Blue-Haired Lawyer above is the best. That is, redirect this talk page to its subject page Village pump (technical). Then users coming here to discuss technical matters will automatically end up on the right page. And on the rare occasions we want to discuss Village pump (technical), then as Blue-Haired Lawyer said, why not discuss it on Village pump (technical) itself?
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, although it is somewhat ironic to have what is effectively a deletion discussion on the nominated page :D. It's rather like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion... ... Happy‑melon 17:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No no, this is not a deletion discussion, this is a merge discussion. We should merge this talk page into its subject page. So this discussion will be moved to the subject page if/when we have decided to do the merge. Oh, we should perhaps put purple merge boxes on top of these two pages!? :))
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"What links here", when links are from a template
I moved a page. A very large number of pages link to it by using a template that links to it. After the page move, they link to the new redirect page. I edited the template to link to the new title. Then I clicked on "what links here" on the page that was moved. The information is not up to date until many hours later, apparently.

Is there a way to speed that up? What are computers for, after all?

(I posted this inquiry a few days ago. Unfortunately I mentioned my reasons for wanting the information.  The ensuing discussion was about that rather than about my question.  So I'm omitting that information this time.) Michael Hardy (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The change just gets put into the job queue and depending on how many other changes are queued determines the time delay before actioning, it is first come first served. You can force a change by making a null edit to each of the pages with the template on it. Keith D (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That takes a long time when the number of such links is large, and that's why I asked "What are computers for, anyway?" Michael Hardy (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Would be great if it could just do random article within a category or group of categories, like "technology"

Archiving seems to be broken

 * Moved from article page to talk page. This thread discusses improvements to the page, not the subject of the page, thus should be on Talk. Franamax (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ClueBot is regularly removing threads from this page, but they don't seem to be hitting archive #62. I've left a note for Cobi. In the meantime, should we disable archiving? And now that I look at it, it seems that both Misza and Cobi have archivebot entries - that don't seem right. Franamax (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They appear to be going to Village pump (technical)/Archive62 instead (note the lack of a space between "Archive" and "62"). Anomie⚔ 21:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I added ClueBot a while back because MiszaBot is having some intermittent problems ATM which meant it didn't hit this page for about two weeks: the first ClueBot run archived 66 threads IIRC!! Well spotted on that error; there is a space in the config template at the right spot, but it seems to be stripped.  I've put an underscore in there instead, hopefully that will fix it. Happy‑melon 21:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's working: . PrimeHunter (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just commented out the MiszaBot entry in the header. Unlikely as it is that we will see battle-bots, it's best to keep them out of the same arena. Review is welcomed, we just need reliable archiving, whoever is doing it. Franamax (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * An unrelated case of battlebots (admin only link) on a page never touched by humans is listed at Lamest edit wars. The battle has apparently ended. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For curious non-admins, the complete page history is below. The page was only deleted once, after all these edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

* (diff) 10:27, 11 June 2009. . DarknessBot (talk | contribs | block) (30 bytes) (Fixing identified double redirect) * (diff) 09:47, 10 June 2009. . Anybot (talk | contribs | block) (21 bytes) (Creating redirect to genus) * (diff) 00:00, 6 June 2009. . DarknessBot (talk | contribs | block) (30 bytes) (Fixing identified double redirect) * (diff) 18:13, 5 June 2009. . Anybot (talk | contribs | block) (21 bytes) (Creating redirect to genus) * (diff) 21:37, 2 June 2009. . DarknessBot (talk | contribs | block) (30 bytes) (Fixing identified double redirect) * (diff) 20:26, 2 June 2009. . Anybot (talk | contribs | block) (21 bytes) (Creating redirect to genus) * (diff) 11:57, 30 May 2009. . DarknessBot (talk | contribs | block) (30 bytes) (Fixing identified double redirect) * (diff) 21:40, 29 May 2009. . Anybot (talk | contribs | block) (21 bytes) (Creating redirect to genus) * (diff) 00:55, 6 May 2009. . DarknessBot (talk | contribs | block) (30 bytes) (Fixing identified double redirect) * (diff) 21:40, 5 May 2009. . Anybot (talk | contribs | block) (21 bytes) (Creating redirect to genus) * (diff) 19:40, 19 April 2009. . Xqbot (talk | contribs | block) (30 bytes) (Robot: Fixing double redirect) * (diff) 01:19, 19 April 2009. . Anybot (talk | contribs | block) (21 bytes) (Creating redirect to genus)
 * That's frickin' hilarious. Finally Wikipedia is showing its true SkyNet nature. And the extra CPU usage has contributed to global warming, I'm setting up the lawn chairs outside the building right now, the beach will arrive soon! :) Franamax (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anybot generated quite a bit of "entertainment". Over 4000 bogus pages created by Anybot were deleted, and lots more damage is probably still being corrected. Here is the deletion discussion. What interested me is the explanation that out-of-date scripts were started by some unknown person. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ilbas. I hope we can stop creaming around here and decide. 24.6.146.73 (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The header description
I've removed most of the header text because its all pretty wrong. While not "guaranteed" that a developer will read this page; it is extremely likely. Brion goes through this page on a semi-regular basis and non-sysadmin developers like myself, ^demon, and Simetrical also use this page, as well as other people involved in MediaWiki development. User scripts are also discussed here on a fairly regular basis, I see no reason to exclude them. If anyone wants to add to the header to add an accurate description, please do so. For reference, the old header was: "The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia. This page is not for new feature requests. Bugs and feature requests should be made at the BugZilla or the Village pump proposals page because there is no guarantee developers will read this page. Problems with user scripts should not be reported here, but rather to their developers (unless the bug needs immediate attention)." -- Mr.Z-man 06:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Images overlapping text...
Some images overlap article text when I read them without logging in, but become readable after logging in. Why should it make a difference? The latest example is in Bourbon whiskey: the image showing "Oak casks..." next to the History paragraph partly overlapped the quoted text (Ref: 9). If this isn't the place to mention it, please point me in the right direction. (BTW: could it have something to do with the "Where would you like to see Wikimedia in five years?" banner?) Thank you, Shir-El   too  12:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but I doubt it, what browser are you using, and does the behaviour change if you change the width of the window ? —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Browser Netvision. I don't change the width. Thank you, Shir-El   too  22:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Bold redirect
Can someone do a bold redirect to Village pump (technical)? See first discussion and above discussion for why. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Archives
Moved from project page

Just thought that now we have 53 Sections on this page; it might be a good idea to have archives. Thomas Rules  17:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just realized that there are archives. Isn't now a good time to move some stuff over? Thomas  Rules  17:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's done automatically by, see history of this page, or the history of any recent archive]. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

French language error messages
-- Red rose64 (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

WP page editor
Where does one go to discuss recent changes to the WP page editor? Contact Wikipedia is not much help. i.e. Who is/are the individual/s that adds or removes features to the WP page editor? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Village pump (technical) (where you are now, except on the project page, not the talk page) is probably the best place to discuss these kinds of changes. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

How to make this html quote box more like quote box?
The box at Stefan_Czarniecki is html, but Template:Quote box does not support to columns (it is a poem, one column is original Polish, second is translated English). Any idea how to make it float into the right of the text? Is there a template, or could somebody work some html magic into this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The proper place to post this is on the attached project page, not here on this talk page, but I've adjusted it anyway. It was a simple matter of applying   to the surrounding . Feel free to move the table up or down if you need to. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I used quote box with column templates and poem. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 19:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for edit to Template:WikiProject Poland
-- Red rose64 (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Add VPT link to other support pages
I have been investigating how users who have technical issues get to the right place for support, specifically how they would get to Wikimedia's bug tracker, Bugzilla.

I looked at how the support pages linked in the side bar under "Interaction" relate to each other, and I found that users looking for technical support starting with the pages linked at the sidebar are not clearly directed to pages that would provide technical support.

I realize that users, new users especially, may be hesitant to create a Bugzilla account and file a report, so I have requested Help:Contents and Contact us - Readers to include links to Bugzilla, Village Pump (Technical), and Bug reports and feature request. This may increase the influx of users requesting for help at VPT, and I wanted to see if there were any objections to the requested changes.

You can find the change requests here:
 * Add Technical Support Links
 * Proposed Change - Add Technical Support Links

I welcome your thoughts and suggestions. -Valeriej (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bugzilla is not a support site; it is for requesting that the developers and operations staff make changes to the MediaWiki software and the way it is configured on WMF wikis. Most technical issues raised by readers do not require the attention of developers or operations staff. Readers would be best served by being directed to the Help desk or Village pump (technical). – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 23:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. Readers and new editors are better served through our help pages. Bug reports can be highly technical will be over the head of many. --  Gadget850talk 11:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation notice
Hello, the English article Un aller simple (2001 film) should be connected to fr:Un aller simple (film, 2001) but instead it is connected to the French disambiguation page fr:Un aller simple (film). Please rectify this. Merci beaucoup. Nordhorner II (talk) _The man from Nordhorn 18:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Looks like the Q12136360 for this has been fixed. Normally questions should go on the main project page and not the talk page.--Salix (talk): 19:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe you've got the magic eye or so and you only have to look at it to fix it. However: Dankeschön! Nordhorner II (talk)_The man from Nordhorn 20:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia ads
Moved to Village pump (technical)/Archive 131 21:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Unlinked archives
So, there are two archives of this page that aren't linked in the talk page header: Archive A and Archive B. I'm not sure how to make them appear there, but they certainly should. Also, the archive list at the top of Archive A isn't working properly, and B doesn't even have one. Please help out, since I don't know how these header templates work. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The one that you moved to Archive B should have been left at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (technical)/Archive 108 because it contains discussions about one of the threads on Village pump (technical)/Archive 108 that was modified after archiving. Please discuss before making page moves like this. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I accept your move-back (although I see no reason to delete the Archive B redirect). However, what about getting these link in the archives list above, which was my original question? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because they're not archives. They're discussions about threads archived on Village pump (technical)/Archive 108 and so are linked through the "talk" tab at the top of that. -- Red rose64 (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What about Archive A? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 03:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Templates for discussion
Various ongoing discussions at Templates for discussion could do with wider participation Please contribute where and as you see fit. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

WMF heading
Re:  

As involved, is out of line with his revert. I would ask him to self-revert until this reaches consensus here. Failing that, I would ask someone else to revert him. This is not a nit, or bikeshed, or molehill->mountain; it's a matter of principle and policy. Thank you. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC) You can claim that the rogue Jdforrester acted independently of WMF, but that's only your non-AGF speculation sans evidence, and Qgil-WMF clearly disputes that. Anyway, WP:NPA. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wrote that heading, of course I am involved. I am not going to blame all of WMF for the actions or words of one of them. So, no, I'm obviously not going to self-revert, there is no need for that. Feel free to address the actual problem, which has been for years now Jdforrester (WMF). Funny though, how you are using my name in the header to complain about using someone else's name in a header. Hypocrisy much? Fram (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hypocrisy much? - Yes, if you're representing an external entity with your heading. What entity is that? I'll be happy to amend my heading.
 * I don't know whether he acted independently or not, and never claimed as much. He is responsible, both in general for what he writes under his name, and specifically considering his position there. His further comments also don't give any indication that the original referenced comment wasn't written or decided by him. From recent events (Lila and so on), it is clear that treating WMF as a monolith is wrong. If he didn't agree with the closure, he should have indicated as much. But all he said indicates that it was his decision, his text, and his responsability. That someone else from the WMF now wants to remove his name from the header after Jdforrester's closure and "explanation" badly backfired is not our problem. That some people see my header as a bigger problem than the usual dirty tactics of some responsible people at the WMF is rather disheartening but not unusual. Fram (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I confused the issue by including irrelevant reasoning. Let's back up. You are in clear enough violation of the Wikipedia policy, No personal attacks. The user's name is not essential to the heading. and your insistence on it is evidence that you are making this about the individual, not the action. That is the essence of NPA. Now I'm done here; if the consensus is that this is NO BIG DEAL, or that your arguments have merit, I'll defer to that as I do all consensus that I strongly disagree with. I am removing your username from this heading, just to eliminate the hypocrisy thing; it's also not essential. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how I should react to the complete silence here. The user's name in the heading is disputed content, disputed with a clearly stated policy basis, and yet no one can be bothered to weigh in one way or the other. That's not how we make decisions at Wikipedia. Must I take this to WP:ANI just to get some participation? Please make any comments policy-based; i.e., explain why this is, or is not, a NPA violation. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Disregard the above. I had not seen Fram's reply to Qgil-WMF, containing further personal attack against Jdforrester. Now that I have, I think it's time this was taken to ANI, and I'm doing that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion at ANI was snow-closed as not actionable. Fram (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Archiving policy on WP:VPT
The current archiving policy on Village pump (technical) presumes that an issue is resolved if the thread is idle for 5 days. As seen here, that is not always true, and now we will have two copies of the thread in the archive, one incomplete. This phenomenon tends to complicate the use of archive and reduce its value. A future user searching for this issue could easily find the incomplete version and miss the final one. I haven't researched the extent of the problem, but others may have more of a handle on that. I think we should at least consider turning off automatic archiving and doing it all "manually" using OneClickArchiver. Would cost exceed benefit? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * When you unarchive a thread that was archived prematurely, you should remove it from the archives. This ensures that there is only one version. Also, I do not trust any of Technical 13's scripts. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I thought we were not supposed to touch archives. In that case I withdraw my comments. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're not supposed to alter archived threads; if you're moving a thread from archive back to main, it's not being altered, just moved. The intent of message boxes like the one transcluded from Village pump/Archive header is mainly to deter continuation of discussion on a page with few watchers (if any), but also to avoid changes to the meaning of agreed outcomes. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we really be keeping Village pump (technical) on the page for an entire year? The gadget author has retired.  It is unlikely that having the discussion sit at the top of the page will change anything.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, the thread should be archived. --Izno (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this the right place to ask for wikitext help?
I'm not entirely sure where to ask for this.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The best place is WP:HELPDESK. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Or the WP:TEAHOUSE, for new or less experienced editors.  Murph 9000  (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are "in general" if you have something that you think is broken or rather complicated you can post here, please be specific. — xaosflux  Talk 23:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, please not at this talk page, but at Village pump (technical). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Archiving interval for WP:VPT
Should the technical Village pump's archiving interval be shortened from 10 days? To what? --Pipetricker (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO it seems reasonable to shorten it to 7 days, as this village pump mostly receives small threads of help requests/etc that nobody cares about after a few days; and therefore there's no need to keep them around for 10 days and have so many threads Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would prefer 1 week + 1 day = 8 days. --Pipetricker (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, just want to shorten it Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Eight works for me as well ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 14:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 - VP/T especially seems to get overly long, Threads should be up for ample time but at the same time not everyone views on PCs (IE I'd imagine the length of the page is an issue for mobile users). – Davey 2010 Talk 19:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It was me that increased it from 7 to 10 days, I did it more than six months ago. IIRC the reason was that a number of then-recent discussions that had been bot-archived had been manually unarchived soon after. Some of the related comments suggested that some people are unable to check in more than once a week. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * +1, per above. - F ASTILY   00:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Reduced it to 8 days, hopefully with the interval being 1 day more than a week (at least most of) those who check once a week will be able to see it before it gets archived Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Name of Wikidata ID parameter in templates
We have several templates that take a Wikidata ID ("QID") as a parameter; and those parameters don't have a standard name. For example:


 * Interlanguage link - WD
 * Wikidata - eid
 * Public art row - wikidata
 * Infobox gene - QID
 * EditAtWikidata - qid

Can we rationalise these? QID or qid seem to be the most common. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like this may have been posted on the wrong page. This is the talk page for discussing VPT. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am thinking of the same thing. Ping ?. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant to post (and will repost) on WP:VPM. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Problem Report preload?
Do you think it would be useful to have a "Tell us about your problem" preload form for this page? We often go back and forth asking people for things that are in the edit notice. — xaosflux  Talk 13:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind, but might get lost in the banner blindness like everything else, since last I checked you can't make 'new section' go to preload. --Izno (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Remind me bot

 * This is the talk page of WP:VPT. Did you mean to post to WP:VPT itself? SD0001 (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes DannyS712 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Now at proper VPT --DannyS712 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Should the Authority control/MusicBrainz RfC be permitted to continue?
This is regarding the thread Village pump (technical) It is noted at the very top of WP:VPT that:
 * The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia.

I cannot find a single post in the RfC that discusses technical issues about Wikipedia; recent posts seem to be much more within the territory of WT:MIRROR or WP:ELN. Now, I'm the last person to suggest hatting a VPT thread; as I often say, "VPT is not ANI". But does anybody else feel that the RfC thread has now gone so far beyond VPT's scope that it should no longer be permitted to continue? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not just move it to a better venue and leave a movedto / movedfrom behind? That's not a reason the discussion shouldn't "continue" though. — xaosflux  Talk 19:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because last time I tried that, the OP got nasty: so I thought that I'd discuss it here first. Particularly since I (and others) have already suggested that VPT was the wrong location and have all been rebuffed by . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support a move to, say, WP:VPR. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be moved, since there is no technical issue under discussion. We might consider a note at the top of VPT strongly advising against posting RFCs here. (edited to add: Move it to Template talk:Authority control and advertise it wherever you want.)– Jonesey95 (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Template talk:Authority control seems like the best place, since this is mostly a content question about that template - and sure advertise it wherever appropriate. — xaosflux  Talk 16:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose move, for reasons given. It doesn't belong on WT:MIRROR (some saying it is a mirror others saying it isn't would make a prejudice to put it there). Similar for WP:ELN. VPR is for proposals: the RfC is not more a "proposal" than it is a "technical issue". Again, I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but no, it should not be moved halfway through proceedings: that would be somewhat disruptive. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, we can move it to WP:VPMISC. The proposal to remove a widely used item from authority control is a proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * VPMISC is, according to its lead paragraph, "... used to post messages ..." – an RfC is hardly a "message", that would be a misfit too. So, suggesting to keep it where it started. Also, the fact that the venue of the RfC is being discussed at Village pump (technical) (which to all extents and purposes is an open discussion on that topic), and then starting a new discussion on the same topic here, without even linking to this talk page section from the open discussion, could be perceived as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Helper script
I've noticed lots of discussions like:


 * A: X doesn't work.
 * B: Works for me. What browser and skin are you using?
 * A: Firefox, MonoBook
 * B: Same here, works for me. Try with ?safemode=1.
 * A: That works! Now what?
 * B: Disable your gadgets and user scripts, one at a time, until you find the problem.
 * &lt;time passes&gt;
 * A: Hmm disabling FooGadget worked. But I like FooGadget.
 * B: FooGadget works for me. Maybe it's conflicting with another gadget...?

What if instead we directed users to a  link, where a handy report containing all the commonly relevant info would be generated? Then we would have:


 * A: X doesn't work

... and so on
 * skin: monobook
 * relevant-pages: commons.js, common.css, monobook.js, monobook.css, global.js, global.css
 * gadgets: confirmationRollback-mobile, ReferenceTooltips, formWizard, geonotice, watchlist-notice, WatchlistBase, WatchlistGreenIndicators, WatchlistGreenIndicatorsMono, FooGadget, SubtleUpdatemarker, charinsert, refToolbar, BarGadget, extra-toolbar-buttons, switcher, responsiveContentTimeless, DotsSyntaxHighlighter, Navigation_popups, PrettyLog, ShowJavascriptErrors, Twinkle, UTCLiveClock, edittop, markblocked, script-installer
 * user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:76.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/76.0


 * B: Oh someone reported last week that FooGadget and BarGadget don't work together in monobook...

For a quick mockup, install User:Suffusion of Yellow/vpt-mockup.js and visit Special:BlankPage/TechInfo. This is not the actual script I'm proposing, but if I were to write something similar to this, would there be any interest in (after review of course) moving it to MediaWiki: space so it can be loaded with, and linking to it prominently at WP:VPT? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely an interesting idea. Perhaps propose it at WP:Code review? I would suggest adding some method of tying the gadget name to a link, either to the gadget source or its documentation page DannyS712 (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be a true gadget, just a MediaWiki-namespace script. And the link would be something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlankPage/TechInfo?withJS=MediaWiki:Vpt-info.js, which would bring up an expanded version of the report you just saw. I don't want to have to ask the user to change a preference, or worse, install something in their common.js. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean a way to link the gadgets that the user has enabled DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was a bit slow on the uptake there. Makes sense. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I vaguely recall having this exact discussion in the past few years. ? --Izno (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I know the info is not visible to others unless you save it somewhere but I don't think a script should collect and display non-public info merely because you click a link. It would probably be concerning to some users who didn't know what they clicked. I like the idea if there is a confirmation step where the user has to accept before any info is collected. Maybe it's early for feature requests but here are a few: Show enabled Beta features. Omit gadgets which depend on rights the user doesn't have ( at MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition). Link [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Suffusion+of+Yellow User rights] and list the rights. I think DannyS712 wants the list of enabled gadgets to link the gadgets. That could also be nice. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well Special:Preferences shows me non-public information. :-) But I know what you mean, and a warning page sounds like a good idea. Yes, by all means make suggestions. We don't want to list everything in, so I need to know what's the mostly likely to cause problems. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I deliberately said "I don't think a script should ...". Another request: Mark non-default gadgets, or list them separately. They are more likely to cause problems, or confusion in helpers who don't have them. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * worked up an options dump (User:BethNaught/exportUserOptions.js) which enables a dump at Special:ExportUserOptions that I've found useful before, could be a starting point. — xaosflux  Talk 13:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like the original thread was at WP:Village_pump (technical)/Archive 167. There was some discussion as to whether to use a blacklist (exclude watchlist token and a few others) or a whitelist. I think a whitelist is the best way to go. Today the user's email (or something else private) isn't part of mw.user.options, but it might be tomorrow. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Reporting bugs to Wikipedia as opposed to Wikimedia
I have encountered a bug in tlx and reported it at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T253945. The resolution was "@Chatul this sounds like an issue with on-wiki template, not the mediawiki software. Closing accordingly". The instruction at WP:VPT should explain how to report bugs to both Wikimedia and Wikipedia, and provide some guidance as to what to report where. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is being handled at Template talk:Tlx, where it should be. In general, if there is a problem with any page (including a template), first discuss the issue on the associated talk page. If there is no response, try a noticeboard. If unsure what noticeboard, ask at WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's, er. not being handled. It took me far too long to get to the point that the thread is presently at, and now I'm stuck. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Archiving broken?
the archiving config for Village pump (technical) says, but I see month-old threads, e.g. . The last archiving by User:lowercase sigmabot III was done on February 29th. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed a similar issue on WP:VPPOL last night; this edit removing blacklisted wikitext fixed the issue there. I've done the same here. --Izno (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , is blacklisted wikitext documented anywhere? Does the bot log anywhere that a page became "tainted", when it stops archiving? —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Links to prnt.sc are blacklisted at Wikimedia sites with  at meta:Spam blacklist. We also have a local blacklist at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it still happening? 3125ATalk!Contributions! 21:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , no. The example I provided has been archived: Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_179. Bot seems to be operating normally. Here's an edit from today: Special:Diff/960089317. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Village pump (technical)/Before posting
This page is ancient with most content being from 2006 talking mostly about issues with the mediawiki software. These are way less common now since mediawiki has matured in the past 14 years and I think it's time to mark it as historical, remove the link from the header and perhaps add a line about the help desk and tea house instead. --Trialpears (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should remove it, we should really just rewrite it. Ed  talk!  16:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Upgrade the browsers and operating systems, for a start. Does anybody still use Firefox 3.7 on XP? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The earliest version of Firefox and Windows combination we're currently tracking is Firefox 52 on Windows XP (analytics). --Izno (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Testing this CSS
At the suggestion of the page I added it to, I'm testing this CSS. Mark Skaggs (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The code in User:Mark Skaggs/vector.css and User:Mark Skaggs/common.css is safe but doesn't work. WP:CUSTOMSIG says "replacing Your username with your actual username". That means:


 * The code will still not work because you haven't created a user page. It should work if you create a page at User:Mark Skaggs. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Eyes on requested
For the last few weeks I have been trying to assist a determined Paid CoI who registered two days before a net 5,300 byte change (with a sizeable deletion of sourced prose) to an article based on a business, Manor Property Group.

At my request, a CoI declaration was made, confirming that the business had contracted Chelgate Local, a subsidiary of Chelgate to "to ensure the factual accuracy of its Wikipedia entry", "review the current entry, fact check and correct any factual errors", and "to add new content to create a comprehensive entry and include more up to date information on the organisation and its projects."

After considerable Talk discussion, this new editor has submitted a revised proposed change at Talk:Manor Property Group under two new subheadings. As I am the only contributor to Talk, I am requesting comments to form a consensus, and also to avoid any suggestions of WP:OWNership on my part.

One aspect includes the development of a free App for Android and iOS; I have no experience of such software hence unable to conclude if this constitutes WP:SPAM?

I appreciate this is beyond the normal scope, but I saw some weeks ago that a tool developer was posting (RADAR), so I hoped for some input via this portal.

Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for helping to keep Wikipedia neutral by working with an editor who has a conflict of interest. This page is for discussion of the VP/T page itself. I'm marking the thread as 'wrong venue' here; I see you're already at WP:COIN. There's no need for separate discussion of the app. Should you have questions or concerns related to the software Wikipedia uses, please post on the VP/T page rather than this talk page. Happy editing! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Starting line-ups

 * For the record: the discussion is archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 150. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)