Latest comment: 5 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Howdy folks. I might be interested in doing some work on this gadget. And there's like 100 sections on this page. Can you please give me a recap of what you think the most serious bugs are? So I can start to prioritize. Feel free to link to the appropriate sections above too. Thank you. P.S. Let's focus on bugs rather than feature requests for now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Novem Linguae, at CfD, the only major bug I've experienced is that XfDCloser can't handle nominations with >50 pages; it'll have something like "http error". This is probably due to the limit of 50 pages per API request for non-admin or bot accounts (the higher limits are 500), and XfDCloser doesn't batch requests properly. Sometimes this error causes XfDCloser to fail on the rest of the page, though this is pretty rare. — Qwerfjkltalk11:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Biggest bugs seem to be around RFD and CFD. This thread from 2022 also has some of the "best of" issues that people are experiencing. I also noticed (going through all of the threads on this page) that many of these are likely one-time issues (and a few of them actually were resolved and just not archived). I'll try to do a second pass... soonish... and tag the ones that I think were sorted out Primefac (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Novem Linguae, I probably should have mentioned this before, but: The main bug I have is XFDCloser not loading. It fails haphazardly, so I assume the issue is a race condition with other scripts. For reference, heres what my HTML looks like with the other scripts loaded (not XFDCloser):
It would be nice if XFDCloser was more robust at handling this kind of stuff. (And yes, I realise there's an open phab ticket for an API to add links to section headers). — Qwerfjkltalk17:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was able to reproduce using your common.js settings. I agree that it's probably a race condition. If another user script changes the HTML in that area, it could mess up XFDcloser's attempt to add its links. Might try disabling WikiNotes as a test and see if that fixes it, because that user script is putting links in the same area as XFDcloser. If that doesn't work, because I'm able to reproduce it, we know that it's something in your common.js, so you could use a bisect technique to figure out what script is conflicting. Bisecting involves commenting out half of your common.js, then seeing if that fixes it. If it does, then comment out half of that. If it doesn't, then re-enable that half and comment out the other half. And so on and so forth. You'd have to refresh a bunch of times to be sure since this is only happening like 50% of the time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. Not sure how I got the word "WikiNotes" into my head. I think I was referring to the pencil icon and similar icons in the CFD heading sections in V22, which I think are placed there by Factorum. So I guess my recommendation is to turn off Factorum for a bit and see if that fixes things. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
For some reason, the regular XFDcloser options are not showing up on AFD discussions. I've uninstalled all of the programs and unselected the gadget. Then I selected the gadget again in the Preferences again but still, no options appear that would allow me to close a discussion. What's up here? LizRead!Talk!23:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was referring to RfD. Sorry for not mentioning. I have switched to Vector 2022 temporarily until Vector 2010 is fixed. Jay 💬05:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't see the green close, quickClose and relist links. When I change my skin from Vector 2010 to 2022, and refresh the RfD page, I see them. When I switch the preference back to 2010, the links are no longer seen. How do I post a screenshot? I was on Edge, but tried on Chrome as well. I see console errors like
2024_June_1:547 This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "codex-search-styles".
[1.43] Use a CodexModule with codexComponents to set your specific components used: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Codex#Using_a_limited_subset_of_components
(anonymous) @ 2024_June_1:547
startup.js:1307 This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui".
Please use Codex instead.
execute @ startup.js:1307
startup.js:1307 This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "mediawiki.ui".
[1.41] Please use Codex. See migration guidelines: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Codex/Migrating_from_MediaWiki_UI
execute @ startup.js:1307
index.php?title=User:PrimeHunter/Source_links.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:36
10Third-party cookie will be blocked. Learn more in the Issues tab.
Thanks for that. Deprecation notices aren't anything to worry about. We're looking for things like "error" and "uncaught". Here's a graphic with more details about what to look for in the console.
To take a screenshot, you press your "Prt Scn" key, open a graphics program such as MS Paint, paste it in, save it, then upload it somewhere. Third party sites like imgur.com can be good for this if you're OK with not using FOSS. If you want to upload it to Commons for FOSS reasons, then you'd want to use c:Special:UploadWizard, although there are many more restrictions due to copyright. For example, you're supposed to crop out your operating system unless it's Linux, and you're only supposed to screenshot open source browsers such as Firefox, rather than proprietary software such as Chrome or Edge.
[edit conflict] No, there are no errors. I know to take screenshots, uploading them was the question. Definitely do not want to upload to Commons where it will be permanent. Same for imgur I guess. Is there a site where images are kept for a day or so and purged? That will be perfect for screenshots. Jay 💬12:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Interstellarity: For what it's worth, I'm all about having this gadget use the target instead of the redirect, but converting Template:Relist into a disambiguation page is controversial: Such a major change to the way things have been done for over a decade probably needs discussion at WP:RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
but with all the other links around I never thought that the way to go to the relisting was to click on the date. A wikilink text should say what the link will go to, but this one does not. So I propose that it instead should look like one of these:
Note that these link to the same place but now it says that the relisting is there whereas it didn't before. Perhaps this comment applies to other things too; I don't know. Thanks for considering. Zerotalk13:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
{{Tfd top}} doesn't format anything, notice that in #Closing the discussion the full close is input as a parameter. I suspect XFDC (and probably Doug's old extension which I still use occasionally) just used that logic as well. I am still thinking about whether I think this is a helpful change vs changing a well-used and long-standing format/convention. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
We could try using clearer wording. For example, changing the current wording of
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2024 August 6
to
The result of the discussion was relisted (please see the 2024 August 6 TFD discussion page)
Can I firstly say, thank you so much Novem Linguae for all your work with patching and bug investigating over the past couple of months - you are an unsung hero!
This is a very greedy wishlist request but I was wondering if there was capacity at some point in the future to add "draftify" as one of the results for AfD? It seems to be a reasonably common outcome nowadays and, while it is eminently achievable by using "custom" and then actioning all the page moves etc., would be amazing for it to be all bundled up. Fully understand if not possible though, or not a priority given everything else happening.
Looks like Vanamonde93 already requested this back in 2022. Ticket. I'll slap a high priority tag on it since it is now requested by multiple people. (This just means that if a volunteer dev ever sits down to work on tickets, hopefully they consider prioritizing it. There's no active development at the moment.) By the way, can you go into a bit more detail about the "extra steps" for drafts? Is the only extra step moving the page to the draft namespace, or are there other steps? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's late here but to my memory, click 'custom' > type "draftify" > close > go to article > move article (and tick 'move talk page' and 'do not leave redirect') > comment out categories on draft page (could be automated?). The bot adds the 'draft from mainspace' template afterwards. Might be something else? Daniel (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I feel like a slight tweak of this would actually make it more useful across more circumstances. For example, at TFD there are (not super-often) "userfications" made to templates, where the template is moved to a userspace, similar to a draftification at AFD. It might be worth having a generic "move" option in the closer options, where the closer can choose the new name of the page (e.g. "Example -> Draft:Example" or "Template:Example -> User:Joe/Template:Example") which could do the move-without-redirect. I do recognise that moving pages is a bit more involved than just editing or deleting pages, so if that sort of expanded functionality is too much, then I guess I'll just have to live with it! Primefac (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Seems like there could be 3 additional modes to add here: AFD draftify, AFD userfy, and TFD userfy. Any others? I'm not sure a move feature would be as useful for things like CFD, RFD, and FFD. Draftify has enough unique stuff going on (turning off categories, adding Moved Draft template) in it that it may make sense to keep it separate. There's also some positives to pre-programming the correct terminology in. For example "draftify" would probably be better to write in an AFD close than "move to Draft:X". –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi! I have an easy (I think?) request: Like at WP:TFD, non-admins are permitted to close discussions at WP:CFD as delete (see WP:NACD for the official guideline saying deletion NACs at CFD are okay). Would it be possible to enable this option for non-admins at CFD, like how it is enabled at TFD? Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@HouseBlaster. Are there any CFD workflows that would change by not having the delete button? For example, for non-admins, maybe instead of trying to delete the page, the gadget would instead need to add the page to a queue / holding cell?
@Novem Linguae: You are correct, it is probably not; however, this template does appear on redirects tagged by PageTriage, and as hinted above in the top section of this talk page, XFDcloser is not able to remove these tags from redirects after their respective RFD discussions have been closed. Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
XFDcloser creating erroneous edit summaries and linking to Undefined after AfD/PROD closures
@Novem Linguae: Looking through some more recent edit summaries that include the link to undefined, it seems that this link is only caused by delinking pages that have been deleted through the PROD process, not AfD (contrary to what I originally assumed), and happens in title with or without spaces (from what I saw). The only way I was able to figure this out is because Explicit does a good amount of deletions, so I was able to see this pattern. (Explicit, thank you for all that you do; sorry this tool has not been working correctly and makes your PROD article delink edit summaries look wrong.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Primefac: To answer your since-removed comment since you make a good point that I was not aware of myself until you made the comment, it seems that the deletion itself is performed by Twinkle (see Animal Behavior Society), but XFDcloser does the delinking of the page deleted via PROD. Does that mean that Twinkle and XFDcloser interface with each other when both are enabled? (Not sure, and I'm not sure who would know.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Novem Linguae: I definitely agree and understand that it is XFDcloser causing the error with the delinking edit summary problems. However, the timestamps for the PROD deletion of Animal Behavior Society (Twinkle) and the delinking of a link to it in another article (the diff in my initial statement [XFDcloser]) are identical. This leads me to believe one of the following: 1) Twinkle has an option built into it to perform delinkings with XFDcloser after a PROD, thus meaning XFDcloser is not sure what to link as a result, or 2) the issue may be caused by user error, possibly by running Twinkle and XFDcloser almost simultaneously. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The bug is not related to Twinkle. PROD deletions are only supported in Twinkle, and although Twinkle has its own Unlink tool, XFDC's unlinking is more feature-rich, so many users tend to prefer that – you can see the option on any non-existing page under "Tools" (vector-2022) or in the "More" dropdown (vector-2010). – SD0001 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Based on all that has been stated so far, seems both of my assumptions are incorrect and the examples that I provided from Explicit show that they are a fast clicker and that the two gadgets do not technically interrupt each other, meaning this probably has nothing to do with Twinkle. But, it seems there may be a new theory here: Do links to undefined in edit summaries only occur via the "XFDC Unlink" option when the respective page is deleted before running "XFDC Unlink"? Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I tried to test this by adding a wikilink to a non-existent page to my sandbox and to a mainspace redirect. I couldn't get the XFDC Unlink tool to remove them. I don't really want to add a test link to a live article, so might be hard to test this. Might need to install the gadget on testwiki and mess around with it there to do it properly.
Also, I wonder why we don't have a mainspace sandbox. Would make certain kind of tests much easier. Maybe we could hard-code it into MediaWiki to always noindex it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It ensures the link in the RFD/core template will go to the correct section of the initial nomination date subpage, especially with nominations with multiple redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe it used to do that, but no longer? Using Scottish Nosepickers as an example... Both before and after the relist change (2=Scottish Nose-pickers), the RfD link still just uses the page title as anchor (#Scottish_Nosepickers). And the anchor already works regardless because every nom in a multi-nom has its own "span-id" element. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
May be unrelated, but much of the time closing as Keep at RfD does not do anything to the redirect page. I have to manually remove the deletion notice and tags. I'm on Vector Legacy (2010). Jay 💬07:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yep, annoying stuff like that is why I leave my time preference on Wikipedia as UTC. Prevents a whole lotta garbagio, and is probably the easiest workaround. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Would this still be the case if I made the edits on November 5 at 10:20 AM my time? I can understand this occurring if it were November 4 my time but November 5 UTC, but it seems odd if both are on the same day. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can't say for certain. This gadget has been wonky for a while, and it hasn't been maintained for a few years. Only thing most have been doing is reporting bugs and figuring out the workarounds and using those so the tool will work for them. For me, I have left my global time zone set as UTC, even though it's not my actual time zone, and I have yet to have any odd issue happen with tools or gadgets based on timestamps. Steel1943 (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Figure I'd add to this: Since this tool is widely used, though not recently maintained at all, in 2022, an editor made some REALLY great updates to {{Rfd2}}, but ... they had to be reverted due to how this tool works and since there was no one available to update this tool to work for {{Rfd2}}'s new functionality at the time. 😫 Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
