Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2013/11
|
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion. |
Strange diff
Hello,
I was wondering why the en-wiki entry on en:Tornado wasn't showing any language links when I found that an IP user had removed the link. However, while reviewing the entry history, I found another more peculiar case of vandalism. Look at the edit on 18 September 2013 by 217.231.124.243. Page history shows that the user added +3,635 bytes to the entry, while the diff only shows that they vandalized the Indonesian-language link. I undid the edit, but the page history does not show -3,635 bytes, as expected. A bug? --Hydrox (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- The amount of bytes shown in the page history is actually for the underlying data structure of an item. More bytes are being added for a new feature that requires more bytes in the data structure. The Anonymouse (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is not unexpected, per the mouse. --Izno (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Related to bugzilla:40810. --Ricordisamoa 01:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Right-userrights
Change: MediaWiki:Right-userrights/sv to Ändra användarrättigheter. -- Lavallen (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. --Stryn (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Btw don't we have some better system message to use in Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Other_rights than Edit all user rights? Where else is this message in use? I know only that it's on Special:ListGroupRights in Stewards section. And on RFP/OR "muuttaa kaikkia käyttäjäoikeuksia" is a bad translation, better would be "muuta käyttäjäoikeuksia", but then it's not acceptable to LGR special page. --Stryn (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am not sysop anywhere at the moment, so I cannot easily find a better page. How does the links in the top of Special:Contributions/Foo looks like for a sysop? If I remember correctly, there is a link to Special:Userrights there. -- Lavallen (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I changed it to User rights. --Stryn (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Good, you can then delete the /sv-MediaWiki-page linked above! -- Lavallen (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I changed it to User rights. --Stryn (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Protection request
Can someone fully protect Wikipedia:Goings-on (Q5268366)? This page is archived weekly on en.Wikipedia by moving the page, and with this the item needs to be fixed every week. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 01:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think an abuse filter might be better, as it shouldn't otherwise impede the ability of others to edit the page. Really, though, this should be disableable on a per-item basis.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well if the weekly unnecessary update can be avoid with an abuse filter, than it would be better, than protecting the page. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 02:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Jasper Deng: Only if it's also per item. Some wikis may want to move a particular page and we don't want to stop them from doing so. --Izno (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, for this particular page only.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ping. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 18:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Was there anything done about this? If yes, than it wasn't effective. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 16:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Is there a reason, why nobody does anything about this? Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 02:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- If an edit filter is not available, I suggest that, at least as a temporary solution, the item be fully protected with a protection summary directing users to the discussion page to request changes. The Anonymouse (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like the page was moved a few days ago,[1] but the data item didn't change.[2] How did that happen? The Anonymouse (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Have no idea, but recently it only happens biweekly. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 03:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like it doesn't update it automatically, if the page was edited in the last 7 days. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 01:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like the page was moved a few days ago,[1] but the data item didn't change.[2] How did that happen? The Anonymouse (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- If an edit filter is not available, I suggest that, at least as a temporary solution, the item be fully protected with a protection summary directing users to the discussion page to request changes. The Anonymouse (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ping to prevent archiving. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 12:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you think protection would help? There are almost only your edits in the last half a year. Would it become better if you lose the possibility to edit?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Most of my recent edits to that page are (1) the unnecessary updates after a pagemove and (2) undoing these edits. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 18:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you think protection would help? There are almost only your edits in the last half a year. Would it become better if you lose the possibility to edit?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The same problem with Project:Village pump (Q16503). I don't think that protecting the pages is the best choice. Though I don't know what would be better... --Stryn (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. But I also think that we can fully protect them until a better solution becomes available. — ΛΧΣ21 05:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- BTW I just noticed, that last after I changed the en.WP link back, a bot came changed that link to the archive again. Somebody, please, protect this page already. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 01:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Since no better solution has yet been presented, I went ahead and fully-protected the page. If anyone needs the page unprotected for any reason, let me know at my talk page and I'll gladly downgrade the protection so that such changes can be made. — ΛΧΣ21 02:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 09:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Since no better solution has yet been presented, I went ahead and fully-protected the page. If anyone needs the page unprotected for any reason, let me know at my talk page and I'll gladly downgrade the protection so that such changes can be made. — ΛΧΣ21 02:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- BTW I just noticed, that last after I changed the en.WP link back, a bot came changed that link to the archive again. Somebody, please, protect this page already. Armbrust (Local talk - en.WP talk) 01:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Desysopping without warning
I've noticed that we've desysopped several admins for inactivity without actually notifying them of the inactivity policy. While this isn't required, as I recall, it's awfully bad form to not do so, and risks leaving once-active valued contributors with a bad taste in their mouth about this project. Can we all agree to stop doing this? The wiki isn't going to implode if we wait an extra week to desysop a user, just so they have the chance to respond to an inactivity notification. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I had assumed that these few sysops were desysopped after being notified, as most sysops who were desysopped this way were. If this isn't policy yet, it should be. I'm thinking of notifying them two weeks before the inactivity check (mid-month).--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- We were desysopping without warning? That doesn't sound right at all. I agree that the users should be warned before being desysopped, and I think the warning period should be either one week or two. I'm leaning toward a shorter period because it takes all of maybe seven minutes to perform ten actions on this wiki. TCN7JM 00:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, this does allow for gaming of the system - an admin is gone for 6 months, shows up and makes 10 actions, and then leaves for another 6 months. At least for some of its desysops, Commons and Meta give no warning. --Rschen7754 01:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't quite see it as gaming the system, since there's no nefarious end result or anything. We decided that an admin needs to make 10 actions every 6 months to maintain their status; as long as an admin is capable of doing that, they can remain an admin. If you want to set the bar higher, then we can have an RfC on the matter, but the way I see it, the inactivity policy is fundamentally a question of "do you have enough of an interest in being an admin to meet this simple expectation?", and if an admin is notified and promptly makes 10 actions and goes inactive again, then that just means that their answer is "yes." Eventually, they'll either become more active, or lose interest in keeping their adminship and just not meet the threshold one time. (And if they do anything abusive in those actions, we have what I consider to be the gold standard of desysopping protocols, so we're well-covered in that regard.) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Rschen7754 here, as the point of the whole "desysop for inactivity" thing is to make sure that only active administrators who are up-to-date regarding most of our policies should appear on Special:UserList/sysop where other users look for those people to contact. I don't think users who make 10 actions every 6 months just to keep their status do really fulfill that criteria and besides that 1 time when an admin decided to make a few actions to prevent a desysop here on Wikidata he caused a lot of trouble resulting in an RFC. Of course we can notify those people but I don't really see a point in it and we have to expect even more sysops gaming the sytem (as I recall all 3 sysops who prevented their inactivity sysop 1-2 days before the 1st of the next month were notified either by email, on IRC or on their talk page). Vogone talk 10:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Would it be an idea to warn way earlier, like after three or four months of ianctivity? Of course, this would still allow an actually inactive admin to make a couple of actions very now and then to keep his status, but other than warning immediately before desysopping, which requires you to make 10 actions immedately and allows you to rest again afterwards, it would allow you to say "I'm going to be more active again in the next weeks", which could lead to continued activity again. And the ones still only doing the needed 10 actions immediately after they get the warning would have to do so more often, and maybe would lose interest in doing so sooner. --YMS (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- That could be a way to keep people active, yes. Thanks for suggesting this. Vogone talk 11:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Would it be an idea to warn way earlier, like after three or four months of ianctivity? Of course, this would still allow an actually inactive admin to make a couple of actions very now and then to keep his status, but other than warning immediately before desysopping, which requires you to make 10 actions immedately and allows you to rest again afterwards, it would allow you to say "I'm going to be more active again in the next weeks", which could lead to continued activity again. And the ones still only doing the needed 10 actions immediately after they get the warning would have to do so more often, and maybe would lose interest in doing so sooner. --YMS (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, this does allow for gaming of the system - an admin is gone for 6 months, shows up and makes 10 actions, and then leaves for another 6 months. At least for some of its desysops, Commons and Meta give no warning. --Rschen7754 01:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Side note: I've added the autopatroller flag to Jon Harald Søby, since he is a long-time trusted user. --Ricordisamoa 01:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've actually been giving ex-admins rollback, since I think it's safe to assume they can be trusted with it. @Ricordisamoa: would you object to my doing the same for JHS? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's moot for global sysops and stewards, because they get it anyway as part of those packages. --Rschen7754 08:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Rschen7754: should we remove it? --Ricordisamoa 10:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well if you already gave it out, don't take it back, but if you haven't given it out, don't give it to them. --Rschen7754 10:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Rschen7754: should we remove it? --Ricordisamoa 10:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's moot for global sysops and stewards, because they get it anyway as part of those packages. --Rschen7754 08:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've actually been giving ex-admins rollback, since I think it's safe to assume they can be trusted with it. @Ricordisamoa: would you object to my doing the same for JHS? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see informing an inactive admin about the potential removal of their tools, and then them making 10 actions as gaming the system at all. Even an admin who makes 10 actions per 6 months is a net positive to the project - those 10 contributions are 10 less RfDs that another admin needs to go through, 10 less spam accounts which need to be blocked, 10 less mediawiki translations, etc. Seriously people, we are all volunteers here. People volunteer their time and effort to improve the project, and as we've already agreed, ten admin contributions is enough to retain the tools. You call it gaming the system, I call it benefiting the project. I'm sorry, but the internet isn't going to burn down if we have some barely-active admins around here. Anyone who thinks differently should seriously ask themselves what this project is and what they are doing here. This isn't a job. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- The issue that I have with that is that not everyone has to be an admin to contribute here. We already have enough problems with active admins being out of touch with policy - it seems like every other week we're having discussions about X admin who misused the tools. --Rschen7754 05:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Most of the admin misuse cases don't seem to be related to how active the said admin is, but rather their own view on the use of the tools. I completely agree that people don't need the admin tools to contribute, but if they do - even if it is just ten actions the week before they would be desysopped - it's still a net positive. Assuming, of course, that they aren't misusing the tools... then other issues arise. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed the first sentence, which I just realized made no sense. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Most of the admin misuse cases don't seem to be related to how active the said admin is, but rather their own view on the use of the tools. I completely agree that people don't need the admin tools to contribute, but if they do - even if it is just ten actions the week before they would be desysopped - it's still a net positive. Assuming, of course, that they aren't misusing the tools... then other issues arise. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- The issue that I have with that is that not everyone has to be an admin to contribute here. We already have enough problems with active admins being out of touch with policy - it seems like every other week we're having discussions about X admin who misused the tools. --Rschen7754 05:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Point me in the right direction of who is up for inactivity desysoppings and I can send out warnings mid-month no problem. Addendum: Nevermind, I found it, and I've warned the next round for December 1. I'll try and keep up with this the best I can. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Changes to user groups
Good day fellow administrators, I held of this little post since I thought Vogone was going to it but appears not. Yesterday a few changes were made to how Wikidata handles user groups and rights of said groups. A small summary of all changes is below as committed to production by Coren.
- patrol and autopatrol permissions were given to (auto)confirmed.
- The Autopatrolled group was removed totally.
- suppressredirect was given to rollbackers.
- A few other unnecessary permissions were removed from rollbackers and property creators; upload permissions, transcode and collectionsave permissions.
This is just to inform other administrator of these changes. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- So, how does Special:ListUsers?group=autopatrolled make sense? Why haven't these rights been removed automatically? --Ricordisamoa 06:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Coren asked to leave Autopatrolled assigned to users. John F. Lewis (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Please
- copy User:Fomafix/MediaWiki:Gadget-Descriptions.js to MediaWiki:Gadget-Descriptions.js and
- change MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition as described in MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Descriptions.js and
- create MediaWiki:Gadget-Descriptions/de with the content: “Beschreibungen: Zeige die Beschreibungen von Datenobjekten und Eigenschaften beim drüberfahren mit dem Mauszeiger.”
--Fomafix (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- done by Bene and me. IW 18:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Should probably be blocked as a promotional/role account, does anyone else agree? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 13:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I cannot see deleted edits, so my answer is: No. Delete the userpage, warn hir and block iff (s)he does it again. -- Lavallen (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- They have 1 deleted edit - creating an item with the same name as their username. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 13:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think deleting and warning is enough... though other's opinion may be different. --by ReviTalkCMG at 13:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Adv-only account imho. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, this looks like a promotional account to me as well. Although, for now I think the warning suffices. The user may not have been aware of our policies here. TCN7JM 02:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I implemented from MediaWiki:Gadget-Move.js a new version User:Fomafix/MediaWiki:Gadget-Move.js (diff) with the following changes:
- mw:Manual:Coding conventions/JavaScript
- Use
getId()instead of deprecatedgetGlobalSiteId()(gerrit:67561) - Use
getUrl()instead of deprecatedwikiGetlink()(gerrit:94270) - Simplified jQuery
- Remove unused variables
MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition should contain
* Move[ResourceLoader|dependencies=mediawiki.util,wikibase,jquery.ui.dialog,jquery.spinner]|Move.js
instead of the current
* Move[ResourceLoader|dependencies=jquery.ui.dialog,jquery.spinner]|Move.js
--Fomafix (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I had a mistake in the code. I made a new version (diff, diff to original version). --Fomafix (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
vandalism Midnight Memories (Q15061626)
I guess the page needs some protection and maybe some blocking of vandal accounts.--Debenben (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Semi-protected, and the accounts have been warned. Not much else to do here. I will watchlist the page in case vandalism resumes after the protection expires. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Loco IP
This IP is not helping. Special:Contributions/113.210.2.146 Palosirkka (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Rolled back. I wouldn't say there is a call for administrator intervention yet however I will watch the IP. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Blocked after continued vandalism. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, here's another weirdo for you to watch Special:Contributions/69.171.166.71 Palosirkka (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Also rolled back. Will watch. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Request for undeletion
- Item family Quiinaceae Q13635621 has been merged to subfamily Quiinoideae Q132800
- Item family Theophrastaceae Q14431954 has been merged to subfamily Theophrastoideae Q132048
- Item family Memecylaceae Q13634053 has been merged to subfamily Olisbeoideae Q134451
by user:Canyq, and obviously subfamilies are not the same as families. To say nothing about the resulting mess in the properties. - Brya (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Doing… The Anonymouse (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)- Done I undeleted those two in addition to Olisbeoideae (Q13634053). I also tried to restore the items back, but please double check to make sure that the items are correct. The Anonymouse (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. It looks good to me. I did indeed make a copying error, but you resolved it fine! - Brya (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Doe anybody know this user? Is it an unflagged bot?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Seems to be a legitimate bot on diq.wikipedia. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 16:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Furthermore, there is a User:Marmase on Wikidata. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 16:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- However not an approved bot on this wiki therefore it should not be operating on this wiki until a request is filed. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- I left the account a message to that effect. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- However not an approved bot on this wiki therefore it should not be operating on this wiki until a request is filed. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Though this item is unlinked and deleted, there're a lot statements in the deleted page without moving to Q4770652. Please help me.--GZWDer (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Undeleted, but "Moving claims..." is too slow... if someone else can move the statements feel free to do so. --Stryn (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleting a property with hundreds of links
Is there any easy way to unlink several hundred backlinks to a property before deleting it? Thanks, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 19:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Bot request. That said, which property? Sometimes it is better to migrate rather than unlink. --Izno (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Izno: It's this PFD, which I was thinking of closing. I was assuming you have to unlink properties before deleting them. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- There is no technical necessity that I know of that requires de-linking before deletion. Any prohibition against de-linking after deletion is social.
- As an aside though, that one might best be merged with shooting handedness (P423), as I suggested might be a suitable alternative for the property (it is odd to me that one was closed one way and the other another). Someone should probably start a discussion for where that data should be merged. --Izno (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Izno: So why is there a huge bold message "Please check to make sure a property is unused before deleting it!" when I go to delete it? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 01:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- As I said, it's a social prohibition. More-or-less, having users confused about why a property is red-linked is not the best of things. --Izno (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Izno: So why is there a huge bold message "Please check to make sure a property is unused before deleting it!" when I go to delete it? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 01:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Izno: It's this PFD, which I was thinking of closing. I was assuming you have to unlink properties before deleting them. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Block of User:ValterVBot
I've blocked ValterVBot (talk • contribs • logs) for introducing way too many false positives in the task for P31 = Wikimedia disambiguation page (see e.g. [3] where the en.wikipedia link is not a disambig). Another admin is free to unblock after the bot operator stops the task. --Izno (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've stopped the bot. Maybe I must skip this task for zh.wiki, because my bot use Special page for detect disambiguation page, but probably they not manage corretly disambiguation page. Sorry. --ValterVB (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
RFD Backlog
User:Liangent added more than 1700 RFDs and I have deleted only a little. If any admin have time, please delete some of them to eliminate them. (PS:I wonder why BeneBot* is not marking deleted item as deleted :P) --by ReviTalkCMG at 03:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Using my spare time, I have cleared all these requests and some other requests. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Block IP 12.197.244.18
Hello,
Please block IP 12.197.244.18 for vandalism. Thanks Starus (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 19:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Jakob ! How frustrating it is not to have sysop tools on a Wikimedia project ;-) — S t a r u s – ¡Dímelo! – 19:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
P813
I've noticed that I accidently have added a future date in retrieved (P813). This far have I only added a few days, no big deal. Would it be possible to add a filter to warn if the added date is more than two days in the future compared with the serverdate? -- Lavallen (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Related question: Does abusefilter have a proper variable for time-based properties? I'm not really sure how to accomplish what Lavallen wants... Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The gadget MediaWiki:Gadget-imagelinks.js is loaded in MediaWiki:Common.js from en:MediaWiki:Gadget-imagelinks.js with the following code:
// Direct imagelinks to Commons (from enwiki)
mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-imagelinks.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript')
This method has the following disadvantages:
- It is on a different hostname, so a separate DNS lookup has to be done.
- The code gets not minified.
- The URL doesn’t change on new version, so it can’t be cached on client side.
- The gadget can’t be combined with other resources into a single request by mw:ResourceLoader
- The code uses the deprecated function
mw.util.wikiGetlink()instead ofmw.util.getUrl()(gerrit:94270)
To optimize the gadget the code should copied from mw:Snippets/Direct imagelinks to Commons to MediaWiki:Gadget-imagelinks.js and activated with the following line MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition#general:
* imagelinks[ResourceLoader|dependencies=mediawiki.util|default]|imagelinks.js
The following system messages should be defined:
- MediaWiki:Gadget-imagelinks: “Redirect image links to Commons for files that are hosted there.” (en:MediaWiki:Gadget-imagelinks)
- MediaWiki:Gadget-imagelinks/de: “Überspringen der lokalen Dateibeschreibungsseite, um sofort nach Commons zu kommen.” (de:MediaWiki:Gadget-CommonsDirekt)
At last the above mentioned lines in MediaWiki:Common.js should be removed. --Fomafix (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Doing… The Anonymouse (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done The Anonymouse (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I had inserted the above code to avoid duplication of gadgets across projects: the English Wikipedia version also solved a bug. --Ricordisamoa 23:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Shared gadgets will come with ResourceLoader version 2: mw:ResourceLoader/Version 2 Design Specification#Shared gadgets. Speed of loading is more important than avoiding code duplication.
- I merged the solved bug from enwiki and fixed a new bug in this change. It can be copied to MediaWiki:Gadget-imagelinks.js. In MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition the module
jquery.mwExtensionshould be added:
* imagelinks[ResourceLoader|dependencies=mediawiki.util,jquery.mwExtension|default]|imagelinks.js
gerrit:94270: Rename mw.util.wikiGetlink to getUrl
gerrit:94270 renamed mw.util.wikiGetlink() to mw.util.getUrl() and deprecated mw.util.wikiGetlink() so it generates a warning in the JavaScript console. Please replace mw.util.wikiGetlink() by mw.util.getUrl() in the following gadgets:
Improperly closed RFC
Wd:Requests_for_comment/One_vs._several_sitelink-item_correspondence has been moved to the "closed" table at Wd:Requests_for_comment by User:Filceolaire, but he didn't put Template:Discussion_top in the RFC page as well, and since then there have been several new comments in there. Since I'm not versed enough in WD bylaws to know what to do, I thought I'd at least post a notice here. Silver hr (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)