Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Special:Myskin.js.2F.css .3F

Hi all,

There are some common problems when developing user scripts:

• While local development usually occurs through a version control system, usually Git with additional continuous integration provided by sites like GitHub or Wikimedia GitLab, publication of new versions of user scripts still require on-wiki edits to the user script page, which need to be done manually, and can be tedious.
• Update of user scripts are restricted to their owners. This creates a large bottleneck for projects maintained by multiple people. This can be especially problematic when a script owner leaves Wikipedia or goes on an extended wikibreak.

Many people, including myself, have encountered these problems. Here are some of the solutions that have emerged in the mean time (see also User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Linking GitHub to MediaWiki):

1. Store a BotPassword/OAuth token of the owner account somewhere, and use it to make an edit whenever new code needs to be deployed (per CI results/manual approval/etc)
2. Use a reverse proxy hosted on Toolforge, then import a remote script hosted on Wikimedia GitLab via {{code|mw.loader.load}} (see :wikitech:Tool:Gitlab-content)

However, 1 to me feels unwieldy and suffers from the amount of effort the engineering/linking everything required, 2 can have issues with regards to caching per the maintainer, and is not as good as hosting the script on-wiki.

My proposal for how to resolve the problems above involves hosting an interface admin bot, and allowing user script authors to opt in to syncing their user script from a Git repository to Wikipedia using webhooks.

Any script wishing to be synced by the bot needs to be edited on-wiki (to serve as an authorization) to have the following header at the top of their file:

// User:0xDeadbeef/usync: LINK_TO_REPO REF FILE_PATH

// so, for example:

// User:0xDeadbeef/usync: https://github.com/fee1-dead/usync refs/heads/main test.js

Here are some questions you may have:

• Why is this being posted here?
• Running this bot requires community discussion and approval. I'd like to see whether the community is willing to adopt this.
• What are some benefits of this proposal?
• Auditability. If this scheme was to be adopted, there is an easy way to know whether a script is being automatically synced, there is an easy way to get the list of all scripts that are being synced. All edit summaries are linked to the Git commit that created that edit.
• Ease of use. It is very easy to setup a sync for a user script (just insert a header to the file and configure webhooks), and flexible as the format above allows the branch and file name to be configured. It removes the need for all script developers to create BotPasswords or OAuth tokens.
• Efficiency. Only webhooks will trigger syncs. There is no unnecessary periodic sync being scheduled, nor does it require CI jobs to be run each time the script needs to be deployed.
• What are some drawbacks of this proposal?
• Security. Even though there are already ways to allow someone else or an automated process to edit your user script as described above, allowing this bot makes it slightly easier, which could be seen a security issue. My personal opinion is that this shouldn't matter much as long as you trust the authors of all user script developers whose scripts you use. This bot is aimed primarily at user scripts.
• Centralization of trust. The bot having interface administrator rights requires the bot to be trusted to not go rogue. I have created a new bot account (User:DeadbeefBot II) to have separate credentials, and it will have 2FA enrolled, and the code will be open source and hosted on Toolforge.
• What are some alternatives?
• We can do nothing. This remains a pain point for user script developers as syncing is hard to setup with careful CI configuration required or a less reliable reverse proxy would be required.
• We can create a centralized external service (suggested by {{u|BryanDavis}} on Discord) that stores OAuth tokens and which project files are synced with which titles. There would be a web interface allowing developers to enter in their information to start automating syncs. However, this may not be as auditable as edits would go through the bot owners' accounts and not a bot account. This is less easy to use as an owner-only OAuth token would need to be generated for each sync task.

Feel free to leave a comment on how you think about this proposal. I'd also be happy to answer any questions or respond to potential concerns. beef [talk] 12:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion is for the task of the BRFA that I opened some time ago. beef [talk] 12:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Am I reading this correct that one of methods you are proposing is to ask other users to give you their (bot)passwords? That is a horrible idea. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yep. It will probably be stored on Toolforge's tooldb though. Preferably it would be an OAuth token that is only limited to editing the specific user script.
• ::I personally prefer having a single bot handle it. beef [talk] 12:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::We explicitly tell our users to never share their authentication secrets with others, I can't possibly support processes that go against that. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::If the bot receives community approval, then we won't need one that collects OAuth tokens. But according to WP:BOTMULTIOP it might be preferred to use OAuth instead of having a bot?
• ::::A different question would be whether we should require all commits to be associated with a Wikipedia username. I personally don't see a need, but WP:BOTMULTIOP and the community might think otherwise. beef [talk] 15:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I think single bot with interface administrator is the way to go. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Much more so this way, making on-wiki edits by impersonating other users has a whole host of problems. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I don't have a preference to either approach, but let's not confuse things here. No one's asking for passwords to be shared. OAuth tokens are not the same as passwords. Every time you make an edit through an OAuth tool (like Refill), you are sharing your OAuth tokens. This is very normal, and safe because OAuth-based edits are tagged and can be traced back to the application that did it. (Worth noting that owner-only OAuth credentials don't have such protections and indeed should not be shared.) – SD0001 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::: This. I'm concerned that having people upload a BotPassword or owner-only OAuth token was even considered, when a "normal" OAuth token is so much more obviously the way to go for that option. Anomie⚔ 13:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Ah, yeah, that would be fine. I guess I wasn't think much about having a non-owner only OAuth application. dbeef [talk] 10:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:I might just be a Luddite here, but I don't think using GitHub for on-wiki scripts is a good idea to begin with. First, I feel that the git model works when there is a "canonical" version of the source code (the main branch, say), that people can branch off of, re-merge into, etc. But the problem here is that a git repo for a MW user script can *never* be the canonical source code; the canonical source code is inherently what's on-wiki, since that's what affects users. There is an inherent disconnect between what's on-wiki and what's elsewhere, and the more we try to pretend that GitHub is the source of truth for a script, the bigger the problems with that disconnect will be. Personally, I've seen many problems caused by the confusion generated just when projects use git branches other than "main" for their canonical code; here, the canon isn't even on git at all. How would this bot handle changes made on-wiki that aren't in git (if it would handle those at all)?

:Second, this doesn't solve the problem of "inactive maintainer makes it difficult to push changes to production", since a repo maintainer can disappear just as easily as a mediawiki user; it just adds an ability to diffuse it a little bit by adding multiple maintainers, at the cost of this inherent disconnect.

:Third, and easiest to overcome, how does this bot handle attribution of authorship? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|source of truth}} is a vague and subjective term. I would personally call the latest version the source of truth, which of course lives on GitHub. Wikipedia hosts the published version, which may not be from the default branch on GitHub (dev branch for development, as the latest source of truth, main branch for the published version).

::But that's of course a personal preference. There are many, many people out there that use Git for version control and for development of user scripts. You may be fine with using MediaWiki as version control and primarily updating code on-wiki, but some of us have different workflows. It might be helpful to write unit tests and force them to pass before getting deployed. It might be helpful to use a more preferred language that transpiles to javascript instead of using javascript directly. Having this benefits these use cases.

::It does solve the problem by allowing additional maintainers to be added. There's no native MediaWiki support for adding collaborators to a user script, so this can help with that, in addition to the benefits of a Git workflow.

::Attribution is given by using the commit author's name in the edit summary. I'm sure user script developers can include a license header and all that to deal with the licensing part.

::I think this thing should happen, and I think it will happen even if there is no community support for the bot to run, it will just involve the proposed toolforge service that collects OAuth credentials. I sure hope that the bot proposal passes but I'm fine with writing the extra code for the alternative too. I also want to think about whether I have enough energy to keep justifying for why I think this would be a good bot task, when all the negative feedback I get are from people who won't use it. The automatic syncing has occurred in one form or another. And personally, I want to be able to use TypeScript to write my next sophisticated user script project, and I want to add collaborators. beef [talk] 14:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::So would this bot only be used for edits in userspace? Or also for gadgets in the MediaWiki namespace? Polygnotus (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I would want to get approval for only userspace edits first. Extending it to gadgets is an even bigger stretch and less likely to get approved. beef [talk] 14:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|I also want to think about whether I have enough energy to keep justifying for why I think this would be a good bot task, when all the negative feedback I get are from people who won't use it}}: None of this happens in a vacuum. I commented on this because I've *already* had people complaining that I didn't submit a pull request on some GitHub repo when I responded to an intadmin edit request and implemented the change on-wiki--despite the fact that the GitHub repo was already several onwiki edits out of date before I made the change. We already have a process for multiple maintainers and code change requests; it's the intadmin edit request template. It's sub-optimal, for sure, but the solution to a sub-optimal process is not to create an entirely separate process to run in parallel. If development happens on GitHub, it doesn't affect anything unless it gets replicated onwiki. If development happens onwiki, it affects everyone regardless of what GitHub says. That's why I call the onwiki version the canonical source of truth--because that's the one that matters. I could see the benefit here if the bot also worked in reverse--if it were set up to automatically keep the main branch of the git repo in sync with the onwiki script. But as it is, I feel this will add more headache than it's worth. Sorry if that's tiring for you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If there is a critical fix, you can remove the header and the bot will stop syncing. That is by design. And then you can ping the maintainers to incorporate the fix. I personally wouldn't mind giving committer access of my user scripts to every interface admin on this site.

::::A two-way sync involves storing authentication to the Git repo, and yeah, harder to implement. Everyone that uses this sync scheme will have all development activity on GitHub, with potentially occasional bug reporting happening at the talk page, so I don't see that much point in programming the sync the other way. beef [talk] 15:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|Everyone that uses this sync scheme will have all development activity on GitHub}}{{fake citation needed}} My whole point is that hasn't been my experience so far. Maybe I just caught an unusual case. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::If someone does choose to sync from Git to Wikipedia, then they must use the Git repo as their primary place for development. I cannot think of any case where people would have an onwiki version that is more up-to-date than the Git version, given that the idea of having it sync is based on the assumption that Git is used as the most up-to-date place. beef [talk] 03:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|1=We already have a process for multiple maintainers and code change requests; it's the intadmin edit request template.}} This seems like wishful thinking. It's just not true. I'm reminded of a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Evad37/rater.js&oldid=922411885#Interface-protected_edit_request_on_21_October_2019 time when a heavily used script broke] and multiple interface admins refused to apply an unambiguous 1-line bug fix. {{pb}}At best, edit requests get accepted for bug fixes, not for anything else. – SD0001 (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::That's true of almost all kinds of software on GitHub. By your logic, the canonical version of, say [https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki mediawiki] itself, is what actually runs on the production machines, not what's on GitHub. Similarly, for a library the canon would be what's released to npm/pypi, etc.
{{tq|How would this bot handle changes made on-wiki that aren't in git (if it would handle those at all)?}} That's like asking if a wikimedia sysadmin shells into a production host and edits the code there, how is it reflected back to gerrit? It isn't. That might sounds non-ideal, but it isn't unprecedented. Already, most big gadgets including Twinkle, afc-helper, and xfdcloser are developed externally and deployed to wikis via automated scripts. Manual edits on-wiki aren't allowed as they'll end up overwritten.{{pb}}{{tq|Second, ...}} It does solve that problem – a git repo can have multiple maintainers to avoid bus factor, unlike a user script which can only be edited by one single userspace owner (technically interface admins can edit as well, but on this project, we appear to have adopted a mentality that doing so is unethical or immoral). {{pb}}Having said that, I personally don't use GitHub or Gitlab for any of my user scripts. But I respect the wishes of those who choose to do so. – SD0001 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I would argue there is a substantial difference between someone SSHing into a production host to make manual changes and the process of talk-page-int-admin-edit request, and the difference is that the latter *is* a process. But also, yes, to an extent I *would* argue that, from a holistic perspective, the code that is active in production and that users are seeing, interacting with, and using *is* the canonical version, and that what is in a code repo, main, develop, or otherwise, is only important to the extent that it reflects what's on the production machine. The reader or normal editor using a website feature doesn't care what's in the repo, they care what they're using, and they're going to be frustrated if that feature suddenly disappears, regardless of whether that's the fault of some bot overwriting code or some dev not committing their changes to the off-site repo or what have you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If I have to choose between two processes that can't co-exist, I'll choose the one that offers more benefits. A git-based workflow enables unit testing, transpilation, linting and better collaboration. It offers a change review interface that allows for placing comments on specific lines. As for talk page requests, refer to my comment above about how useful they are. – SD0001 (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::There's pros and cons. I talk about it in my essay User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Pros and cons of moving a gadget to a repo. Popular, complex gadgets are often the use case that benefits the most from a github repo. A github repo enables automated tests (CI), a ticket system, and a PR system, among other things. These benefits are well worth the slight downside of having to keep things in sync (deploying). And in fact this proposed bot is trying to fix this pain point of deploying/syncing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:@0xDeadbeef Don't know if you missed it in the Tech News above, but wikitech:Tool:Gitlab-content describes a new reverse proxy that allows user scripts to directly run code from gitlab. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Ahecht They mentioned Gitlab-content above. Search for {{tq|remote script hosted on Wikimedia GitLab}} Polygnotus (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have talked to BDavis on Discord and he said he thinks having it synced to an on-wiki page is better than a reverse proxy. It's in the thread under the #technical channel on Discord. I originally thought that gitlab-content was going to be the ultimate solution but apparently not. And I had already written some code for this thing to happen, so I figured why not propose it. beef [talk] 15:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• An alternative that doesn't require any advanced permissions or impersonation issues is for the bot to just sync to itself. It could sync from anywhere upstream to User:Botname/sync/xxxx/scriptyyy.js). Then, any interested user could just import that script. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :For gadgets, we already have a manual process - a bot that opens an edit request when an upstream repo wants to be loaded to the on-wiki one. That does allow us to ensure that changes are only made when we want them, and allows for local code review. For userscripts, users that want to do what this thread is about are already going to have to just trust the bot directly regardless. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :That might be fine, but to me less preferable than the main proposal because then it would be harder to know who is maintaining what script. (I guess it wouldn't be the case if the {{code|xxxx}} refers to the user who asked for the script) I'm also slightly lazy about adding a new proxy-script-creation system in addition too.
• :A slight concern would be that the name could shift the responsibility of trust and maintaining the script to the bot instead of the actual maintainer. beef [talk] 15:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::This would absolutely require that anyone's space that you were publishing to trusted the bot. By publishing a revision you would be responsible for the revision you publish. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::The problem with this alternative approach is that it is just hard to manage.
• :::If I make a user script, it should be my own. Under a bot's userspace, you'd need a separate process for requesting creation and deletion.
• :::Also this makes it harder for pre-existing scripts to be synced. People already using and developing a script at an existing location cannot choose to adopt a Git sync. And it makes it much more harder for the person to disable syncing (compared to editing in your own userspace to remove the header). beef [talk] 03:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Deploying gadgets such as Twinkle and AFCH (using fragile and bespoke deploy scripts that have a lot of manual steps), and my user scripts (which I edit in VS Code then copy paste to onwiki) is a pain and not a good use of my time. Let's automate this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• I know this is not going to happen, but i consider it unfortunate that we have to do all these hacks. A more reasonable approach would be if there was a spot on gerrit where script authors could put their gadget scripts (With CR excpectations being similar to on wiki instead of normal gerrit) and have them deployed with normal mediawiki deployments. I guess there's all sorts of political issues preventing that, but it seems like it would be the best approach for everyone. Gadgets deserve to be first-class citizens in the Wikimedia code ecosystem. Bawolff (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :We're a top-10 website in the world, I wouldn't call it "political" that we could be hesitant about loading executable code from an external commercial platform in to our system without our review. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::If the community wants to restrict the sync to only Wikimedia GitLab, there wouldn't be any objections on my part, though I don't see why we can't do GitHub as well. beef [talk] 03:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::To clarify, I'm just saying, in the ideal world, gadgets would be deployed as part of MediaWiki (i.e. They would ride the deployment train). Its weird that this stuff is being layered on top. I understand that there are political & historical reasons why this is not the case, but ideally gadgets would be treated the same as any other site javascript. Alas that is not the world we are living in. Bawolff (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The train is slow and mediawiki developers have been known to argue with communities about practices. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Well, if gadgets rode the deployment train, they wouldn't exactly be gadgets, would they? They would be indistinguishable from JavaScript loaded by extensions. The point of gadgets was for them to be fully under community control. I think it's intentional they're managed on-wiki, although admittedly at that time JS development tended to be lightweight and the drawbacks of wiki-based editing may not have been a big deal. Making gadgets be part of an extension feels akin to making Community Configuration controlled via ops/mediawiki-config. – SD0001 (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :There was at least one hackathon project in the past that proposed something like this, but I don't think it ever went anywhere. @Legoktm and I think either @Krinkle or @Catrope (I can't remember which unfortunately) worked on the idea of making a single extension to host the code for multiple gadgets during the Mexico City Wikimania hackathon. Oh my, that was 10 years ago now. Today I assume one of the main blockers to this idea would be finding a Foundation engineering team to claim ownership/sponsorship of the extension. -- BryanDavis (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• The only concern I have is that you should require the existing interface administrators be given write access to the repository on request. Otherwise this falls into the ballpark of me not personally seeing the value or using this myself but if other people think it's useful then more power to them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :It's not something I can require because it involves people that are not me. IAs can disable the sync through removing the line for the sync. I personally would give access to my repos to IAs upon request but that's just me. dbeef [talk] 10:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• I'm highly supportive. I hope the default for devs of major scripts will become deployments from GitHub (the current ad hoc system is honestly pretty wild). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

https://wikiwix.com is a small web archive provider based in France. They have links in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=insource%3Awikiwix+insource%3A%2Fwikiwix%5B.%5Dcom%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 4,585] articles on Enwiki. Most of are irreplaceable ie. there are no replacements at Wayback or Archive.today - as far as I can tell, the site has been broken fully or partly, continually or intermittently. If you go to frwiki and look at the references section for any article ([https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapour#Notes_et_r%C3%A9f%C3%A9rences Example])), every link has a superscript "[archive]" tag; this is done automatically via a MediaWiki plugin. URLs can take different forms for example:

• https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/20110224124311/https:/whc.unesco.org/en/list/91 .. the inclusion of the 14-digit timestamp was a requirement before they could add links to Enwiki. However they often generated fake timestamps.
• https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/?url=https:///whc.unesco.org/en/list/91 .. this is the native form on Frwiki, they don't use timestamps

Neither of the above are working (for me). The main homepage is confusing how it works. I'm looking for help to understand this site, the situation, or any information. -- GreenC 16:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|Most of are irreplaceable}} How accurate is that statement? Since https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/91 is still active, it can simply be archived now, if the source content hasn't changed. Nobody (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Looks like I picked a bad example. Most though are dead links. Years ago I went through them and replaced what I could or deleted if the link was live. But this is a complex system with constant changes. -- GreenC 05:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{see also|#Tech News: 2025-22}}

results in

{{talk quote|[quote begin] {{see also|#Tech News: 2025-22}} [quote end]}}

with warning "no output: none of the target pages exist." I assume Module:Labelled list hatnote needs to be fixed somehow. Nardog (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tl|See also}} was changed in December per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#Template:See also if exists to check if the link exists. I have just updated it so that you can turn this off by setting {{para|ifexists|false}}, but I agree that detecting anchors should be done automatically by the module. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::I went ahead and updated the module as well so {{para|ifexists|false}} shouldn't be necessary for section anchors. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Ahecht: Thank you for making this correction! This is quite helpful to have fixed now 🙂 Cheers! Johnson524 20:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I would really appreciate it if anyone could add a parameter to the Template:Cite constitution to toggle the "|polity" parameter, which as of now automatically wikilinks any value imputed. For context, I'm trying to cite the constitution of "the National FFA Organization", but a wikilink to the "Constitution of the National FFA Organization" not only does not exist and is not helpful, but likely never will. Being able to turn off this auto-linking if one desires would be very useful for this and other non-governmental constitutions. Cheers! Johnson524 20:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I would like to propose a change to the mobile menu sidebar on the top left to add a link. If I get a consensus to add a link there, can interface administrators implement it? Interstellarity (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:No. Izno (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:To expand, you would need to follow the process discussed at phab:T65459#10833022. Izno (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Currently, you can edit the entire article only .

I suggest making a mechanism that will track individual paragraphs and display a PENCIL "Edit Source" on the right.

You can see something similar in many web-mails (gmail.com).

Of course, the question immediately becomes what to consider a paragraph. This is not so important, you can combine several paragraphs to a large one.

It's better than editing the entire article on 4 screens. Seregadu (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:Check out Wikipedia:MiniEdit. Remsense ‥ 论 04:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. It often happens that the user does not see some scripts on the page. I've disabled everything I can.  And on Chromium 136, I don't see this pencil. Like 99% of Wiki users Seregadu (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not exactly sure what issue you're having, but this is a script you need to add! I don't think you've done that, at least not to User:Seregadu/common.js, which is where you would only have to copy one line to enable MiniEdit. If you need more help, don't hesitate to ask. Remsense ‥ 论 04:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm going to try adding a script now, but why not do it for everyone?

::::This script only works on the user's side and does not create a load on the Wiki. Thanks for the script ! ). Seregadu (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Glad if I could help! Honestly, it's always worth considering that most people aren't "power users" like you and I, and maybe you can imagine little symbols showing up all the time being confusing or stressful for someone's grandma or a young child. Remsense ‥ 论 05:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::This script edits only 1 level. Very sadly. Most discussions have 4 pages that are far from level 1. Seregadu (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Because the mechanism used to edit something is the section, not the paragraph. When you click an edit button next to a paragraph and get the whole section, your user will be like "what happened?!"

:::::And, to be honest, a button every paragraph would be a lot of clutter. Izno (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::No! Exactly every paragraph ! After all, the pencil is already there and it works well. In this conversation, I can edit only the first 5 lines. Let's wait for your opinion when this conversation grows to 4 screens. Seregadu (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I routinely edit pages much longer than that. Editing with paragraphs wouldn't be useful. Izno (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::What do you mean by 4 screens? And I definitely would not find this useful. Doug Weller talk 06:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

2 problem that , that I found right now! And where is the community see ? I'm not just adding empty lines, I'm testing the script. I see that it requires updating the browser cache after each text change. It's not normal.

it's as if adding text removes the script from the browser cache. Seregadu (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, only 1 level. This feature of a good script makes it useless for serious lengthy discussions. Seregadu (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Discussions usually shouldn't be edited, the tool is for editing articles. CMD (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::BTW the correct way to say "level 1" is "namespace 0" or just "article". See [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_default_namespaces List of namespaces]. Talk pages are namespace 1. -- GreenC 15:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I finally tried this script now, I wanted to edit my message. The script prompts me to edit the entire header of this page, not my message. This script doesn't work for me. Neither at the 0 level of names, nor at 1, nor at 2. Seregadu (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I couldn't find a link to my common.js page, and link to all the scripts useful to the user. You don't admit the idea that I should write them myself, do you? The obvious place: "Special pages" -- there is nothing.

:I think , Wikipedia should structure useful links for the user inside his profile. Seregadu (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{replyto|Seregadu}} The link was given above, in Remsense's post of 04:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC); but it may also be found at:

:::Yes, I wasn't paying attention. I searched in the top menu, in the side menu, but not in my profile. I was no right. Yes, the script works for editing articles, but not discussions. And that's good too. Although it's strange for a Wiki to invent different text formats.

:::But you still haven't answered the question: "Why a simple user, even without knowledge of JS, doesn't see a link to a library of useful scripts or styles? It is a pity if it exists, but there is no link to it. Seregadu (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::*Special:MyPage/common.js

::*Preferences → Appearance, specifically, it's the "{{int:prefs-custom-js}}" link just under "{{int:prefs-common-config}}"

::So, it's already "inside his profile". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I noticed that in the article preview (hope that's the right term) of Kominkan, it shows up as "A kominkan , or citizens' public hall..."

The issue is with the unnecessary space after "kominkan". I'm assuming it's because of the automatic removal of "(公民館, kōminkan)" from the actual article since it's in parentheses; I suggest tweaking whatever code that does this to remove the space as well. x RozuRozu • ^tea_cups 05:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:Old discussions at phab:T69225, phab:T162219, phab:T168848. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

This is what jumped out on the main page like an Orange bar of doom:

Light mode has a gentler desaturated yellow/orange. Can we have something less alarming than red? 174.138.213.2 (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've changed it to use the same style as the topbanner for now to reduce the jarring color clash; others should feel free to discuss additional improvements. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I probably made a 'typo' at some point in the process of generating the dark mode colors. I've swapped it back to the original light mode and instated something a lot less red for dark. Izno (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::The template's documentation was accidentally deleted. I submitted an edit request. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Please [https://github.com/wikimedia/wikipedia-ios/pull/5308 remove the providence tracker from the iPad app], it's a time-wasting misfeature that doesn't reflect Wikipedia's values. Jikybebna (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:We are not the WMF. Izno (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I recently realized that all Templates I find that do overlays like for example Template:Superimpose do not show the correct positions if you switch to the mobile view, the overlay is shifted a bit. In the template example the overlay moves from the center of colorado to the south. Is this a known issue? Would anyone know how that could be fixed?

A side observation is that with Template:Location mark the position seems correct but it still shows weird. McBayne (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is basically not correctable. Izno (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:@McBayne This template (as well as {{tl|superimpose2}} and {{tl|overlay}}, {{tl|site plan}} but not the various Location map templates), never set a fixed line height. This has caused all these designs to be dependent on a specific line height of the skin but also on the fontsize of where they are used. Ideally, these would have all been designed with a line-height of 0, as well as taking into account the size of anything they lay on top of the base layer. This makes all of these things 'broken'. Honestly, the best way to correct this, is to make a new template, which corrects this problem and phase out the older ones. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Looks like 1186 transclusions across the 4 templates. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks a lot for the quick response. How easy do you think a fix (with a new template) is? How much do the templates need to change?--McBayne (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

{{tracked|T395680}}

@Liz I doubt this is the best place to ask this, but Quarry is not working at all. Pages take 5 minutes to load and it is impossible to submit a query. I am posting this on the pump if anybody knows what is causing this or how to fix this... -1ctinus📝🗨 00:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:I noticed Quarry goes down every few days. If it happens again, you can use the alternative https://superset.wmcloud.org/sqllab/. – DreamRimmer ■ 12:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Sometime fairly recently a change was made to VE that allows you to double-click on a reference in the {{t|reflist}} and edit it directly, as opposed to having to go track it down in the body of the article. I just want to say that this is wonderful, and a huge timesaver, and thank you to whoever made this happen. RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oh yeah. Is there a userscript for non-VE? -- GreenC 04:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::GreenC, Factotum can do it, as can User:Ingenuity/ReferenceEditor.js, though there may be better options I don't know of. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh nice. I looked at Factotum it's kind of overwhelming the complexity of options and taking over so many things I have yet to try it. I just installed ReferenceEditor and it's great except it only is able to edit a small proportion of citations for some reason. I can understand certain things, but some perfectly formed idiomatic CS1|2 citations it is unable to edit. Maybe I need to spend time with Factotum to see what it can do. -- GreenC 15:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I tried Factotum. It works better though I wish it was a popup edit window like ReferenceEdtior but it's still a big help with citation maintenance. -- GreenC 16:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the thanks, I've passed it along to the team. It's rare and appreciated. Digging… that was phab:T54750 by the Editing team and specifically Esanders in gerrit:c/mediawiki/extensions/Cite/+/903311 (and the mountain of prior code/collaboration that it all requires!). HTH. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{+1}} on this! Such a useful feature. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

How to restore Talk:The Love That Whirls (Diary of a Thinking Heart) to a "normal" talk page? The page displays as a redirect talk page, but the source text appears to be what it should be. For context: I created the article, and I asked the draft acceptor afterwards to display the article title's parenthetical in italics. That was fixed, but with the recent page moves, redirects, I'm left confused as to why this current situation is happening. Fundgy (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:%27%27The_Love_That_Whirls_(Diary_of_a_Thinking_Heart)%27%27&action=history the double quoted mark version can be accessed via an action link]. I was not under the impression that double quotation marks would cause this kind of behavior (and it's not a redirect apparently, else we'd get the little note that says you've come from the one page). Izno (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::I see now that another editor adding {{italic title|all=yes}} to the article fixed this. I'm afraid I'm (basically) new to editing, and I just don't know what the course of action is here. Should the double-quoted version be deleted? My concern is just so that the "main" talk page stops showing redirect categories and "This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale." Weird that it's essentially a redirect in name only. Fundgy (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Not sure what page you're ultimately accessing, but I've deleted the ones that shouldn't exist. Izno (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you! Also, I just purged the page's cache, and everything seems to be in order now. Fundgy (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Why does Template:JSTOR not have a page parameter? Can that be added? If you put ?seq=5 in the URL you should go to page 5. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25120881?seq=5 Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Template_talk:JSTOR#Template-protected_edit_request_on_30_May_2025 Polygnotus (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Can somebody use a script or something to generate me a big list of editors listed as participants in each of the :Category:WikiProject Countries projects or even :Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. List them as User talk:xxxxx , one per line, at User:Dr. Blofeld/Country WikiProject members after each other? I need it for a message list for Wikipedia:The World Destubathon. It'll take days to even do a few manually.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Polygnotus (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, I've requested mass message rights.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Is there a way to find a list of the most active editors (who've made the most substantial expansions), to science, technology, engineering, maths, medicine and business articles and geography and city/village/region articles in recent years. Including good and featured article contributors etc? I've been looking through the Science project members and it's difficult to find active editors! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Dr. Blofeld We don't have "most active editor in science/tech/engineering/maths/medicine" (the software does not keep track of that) but we do have Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits (the top5k) and Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/5001–10000 and then you can filter out those who have been blocked/are inactive. Polygnotus (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: The database does record the project assessment and association of all pages (mw:Extension:PageAssessments#Database tables). So it's possible to get all pages tagged with the project, get for each page the number of edits for each editor, and then sum up the counts to get the editors with the most edits on that project in a given timeframe. We're going to add similar information (though from the "what are this user's projects" side rather than "what are this project's users") to XTools soon (we're doing a lot of stuff these days, so the change won't go live for a while). Probably this would be a slow query and should be done by batches (such as: first 100 pages, 101-200, and so on). — Alien  3
3 3 14:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Alien333 Interesting, is there something I can read about the improvements to XTools? Currently its technically possible but it would require so many API calls that it would be a bad idea. Polygnotus (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::: A list of everything that's happening/planned is at phab:tag/xtools. Feel free to drop a task if you've got a suggestion. Stuff that's done and will 100% be in the next update is in the "Pending deployment" column. Changes that still need review are at [https://github.com/x-tools/xtools/pulls].

::::::: It's perfectly doable in reasonable time, just not through the api. The go-to solution for such mass queries to the database that still can finish in reasonable time is [https://quarry.wmcloud.org/ quarry]. — Alien  3
3 3 15:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Alien333 Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: @Dr. Blofeld: well, I couldn't help myself fidgeting with the idea. Turns out the query takes about a few minutes in the end.

:::: The MySQL optimiser is a bit dumb, so it can't be one query: first you have to go to a fork of [https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/94186], change the project name line 5, start it, wait a few minutes, then you get a comma-separated string of user IDs. Then go to a fork of [https://quarry.wmcloud.org/history/94187/1012895/982195], replace line 4 by what you got in the previous step, and poof, you get the list of the 100 most active users in the given wikiproject, with those with the most edits first.

:::: It's a bit of a mess, but it's prob still much faster than doing it by hand. — Alien  3
3 3 20:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks both! Is there are way Alien that you could copy into a Wiki list? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Quarry has a "download data" at the right that lets you download the CSV of the result; as here there's only one value per row it gives the names one name per line. — Alien  3
3 3 09:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::: I don't see why you don't just join actor (or actor_revision, which is a little faster since you're already joining revision anyway). Also, you don't need to go through the page table at all, since page_assessments.pa_page_id is already a page id and that's all you're using it for; the revision_userindex view is usually a pessimization unless you already have a set of actor ids you're looking for; you don't need to select COUNT(*) just so that you can order by it; and you're aware that you're throwing away the ordering in that second query, right? quarry:query/94218 does it in one step; quarry:history/94218/1013390/982681 for a version showing the edit counts. —Cryptic 21:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::: I wasn't joining on actor because the MySQL optimiser is dumb and last time I checked it didn't use the index when doing the join, which meant it scanned the whole actor table and took ages. Maybe related to your other points, though.

:::::: You're 100% right on the join on page, and the other stuff you said; and no I'd forgotten that the second query threw the ordering away.

:::::: I'm a bit rusty at SQL :). — Alien  3
3 3 05:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

So, unfortunately, I was logged out of my account, and whenever I try to log in, the following text message appears: “There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking.” It also further mentions that it may be due to my cookie settings. Well, I can’t access that due to this exact problem. If anyone could help me, I’d be very thankful. BTW, my account is “Long-live-ALOPUS”. This may have something to do with my account completing one year, but, I’m able to log in in other devices, not my iPad. Could it be a problem from my side? I don’t think I forgot my password. Please help. 2405:201:550B:B035:B588:DBDC:3F72:E094 (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:Can you acccess https://auth.wikimedia.org? It redirects to https://www.wikimedia.org/. If the redirect works then try deleting your cookies on the iPad. See [https://support.apple.com/en-us/105082]. If you don't want to delete data for all websites then try wikimedia.org and wikipedia.org. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, I’m even signed in. The problem is only in the English Wikipedia. I’ll try deleting the cookies. Thank you for your help! 😄 2405:201:550B:B035:FC82:3345:E73B:F763 (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::I deleted the website data for Wikipedia on my iPad, but it still hasn’t worked... what should I do now?! 😞 2405:201:550B:B035:FC82:3345:E73B:F763 (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It’s working in my other devices, but not on my iPad. What should I do?! 2405:201:550B:B035:64BD:3EBA:4565:5A6C (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Login uses wikimedia.org. Did you delete the website data for both wikimedia.org and wikipedia.org? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes. Even after two days, it’s not working on this device. 2405:201:550B:B035:9D0C:8D1C:83DD:3771 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I cleared all the website data in my settings, but it’s still not working. 2405:201:550B:B035:9D0C:8D1C:83DD:3771 (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Check if the date and time are correct on your device. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, they are correct. 2405:201:550B:B035:9D0C:8D1C:83DD:3771 (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Like, this is me on another iPad, but it’s not my main device. Long-live-ALOPUS (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Try opening an incognito window (that's on Chrome; I think Safari and Firefox call it private browsing) and try to login there. If that works, that's a pretty good indication that you've still got some stale cookies that need removing. RoySmith (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I use an old iPad (the first generation of the iPad Air), so it doesn’t have that feature. 2405:201:550B:B035:CD9E:1317:5009:A39B (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::That's a 12 year old machine (from when it was introduced). The newest version of iOS it should support is iOS 12. iOS 12 comes with Safari 12, which most definitely has "Private browsing". It is not unlikely that there is some sort of incompatibility with iOS 12 devices and the recent changes to the login methodology as it was likely never tested. Have you tested other language wikipedias ? What about https://en.wikivoyage.org ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Well, I don’t have that private browsing feature; I think there’s a content filter, that’s why. Also, yes, I’m able to log in to my Arabic and Hindi Wikipedia accounts (which are the same name as my English one), but not Wikivoyage. Also, I’m able to log in from other, non-permanent devices, so this is a problem in my iPad. 2405:201:550B:B035:CD9E:1317:5009:A39B (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

For some reason I'm now seeing a box at the top of every article page with Article Links Tools and Include URLs. All I did was update my common.js to allow mass messages [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADr._Blofeld%2Fcommon.js&diff=1293183948&oldid=1182781227 here] ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Dr. Blofeld}} You also imported User:Polygnotus/Scripts/ListGenerator.js which makes that box. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Ah OK, thanks! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm noticing an issue with Draft:Baba Mosque where manually added categories (such as Category:AfC draft submissions) are not retained or do not appear in the rendered page after saving, especially when the template is used.

Steps to reproduce:

1] Go to Draft:Baba Mosque

2] Add a category like (Category:AfC draft submissions)

3] Save the page — the category doesn’t appear

Is this suppression intentional due to the template? Or is there a technical issue at play? Thanks! Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 11:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is a tracking category that is added automatically by the {{tl|AfC submission}} template and does not render as text. – DreamRimmer ■ 12:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::The draft uses {{tl|Draft categories}} which deliberately only displays the categories at the location without actually adding the page to the categories. Don't change this. The categories would be added if they were outside {{tl|Draft categories}} but don't do that. AfC categories should not be added manually. I have added {{tl|AfC submission}} instead.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Baba_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=1293220665] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

(Context) I would like to add a section to an article talk page which contains a list of checkboxes which I can tick and then save the section. Short of using 'pre' tag with '[ ]' and '[X]', is there a civilized way to do it? Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 12:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Gryllida}} You could use {{tl|Checkbox 2 (simple)}} or another template linked there. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

: I just use

:* {{tlg|unchecked box|code=y|_show_result=y}}

:*     {{tlg|checked box|code=y|_show_result=y}}

: and don't really need to bother with a parameterized template whose name or parameters I can't remember. Mathglot (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there some gadget that would modify Vector Legacy 2010 skin and

• move "delete" button from "more" panel and would make it more accessible?
• maybe move it in such way only if delete template is on the page?

Note: I know that I am not an admin on Wikipedia. I have admin rights on other, much smaller, Mediawiki wiki - where there is backlog of many pages to be deleted. Currently I need to click to open a page, click to view history and maybe investigated, click to unroll panel, click delete, confirm delete. I would gladly simplify this process as I will do it about 1200 times or more Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Mateusz Konieczny}} Some of our deletion templates make a delete link which is only visible to administrators and has a prefilled reason. If you post a link to a page with a deletion template at your wiki then we can maybe help more. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|PrimeHunter}} https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Delete Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Mateusz Konieczny}} Your wiki already has the required sysop-show code in Openstreetmap:MediaWiki:Common.css and Openstreetmap:MediaWiki:Group-sysop.css so it looks like you only have to edit the template with code like "Message for admins" in the source of {{tl|Db-meta}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|PrimeHunter}} Thanks, I got it working! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

: Mateusz, after you post the link, if the button has a CSS class defined for it, you may be able to move it yourself, using custom code at your common.css page. If not, then probably a User script would do it. Mathglot (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Quite a few articles contain a {{code|^{[citation needed]}}} tag, usually added via visual edit. These should be converted into standard cn tags. I fixed one at Special:Diff/1293275217. And a search for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22%5B%5BWikipedia%3ACitation+needed%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&searchToken=86opyhchckutlk02egbfjhm1p insource:"CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:Try insource:"Citation needed" insource:/\[\[Wikipedia:Citation needed/i . The latter search is regex search. insource:"Ponor (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

So, I have written a Python code that takes a file, does some operations on the text, and replaces the old text with new text. Now, Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User manual#Tools allows external scripts, but I don't understand how to pass the article through the Python code. What additional code is needed for it? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:Category:Use Malaysian English transcludes {{tl|Parent monthly clean-up category}}. That template was modified on 31 May 2025, but when I click on "Related changes" in the sidebar of :Category:Use Malaysian English, the resulting page says No changes during the given period match these criteria. I have been having a feeling that "Related changes" has not been working properly for a few months, but this is the first time that I have been able to find a concrete example. Am I misunderstanding what "Related changes" is supposed to show? I use it to try to figure out why a page that has not been modified in a while is suddenly showing a change of some kind (e.g. a new category or syntax error). – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

2025 FIFA Club World Cup qualification seems to have script errors: Template:4TeamBracket-Info, Template:8TeamBracket-2Leg and Template:16TeamBracket-Info are not added to Module:Bracket. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Could someone who is good at REGEX please enact the change described at :species:Wikispecies:Village Pump#Template:VN - technical change needed?

Hi everyone! I'm writing on behalf of the Web Team. Over the past year, the team has been exploring ways to make the wikis more accessible to readers globally through different projects around content discovery. One of the ideas we’ve been discussing is the presentation of machine-generated, but editor moderated, simple summaries for readers. These summaries take existing Wikipedia text, and simplify it for interested readers. Readers will show interest by opting into the feature and clicking to open the summary on pages where it is available. As part of our exploration into this idea, in the next two weeks we will be launching: