Wikipedia talk:Ultraviolet

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Hello there! By now, you may have already noticed that RedWarn hasn't had any major updates since 16.1 (released on March 8, 2021), and we've only been sending out some minor patches and bugfixes since then. In that time, we've been hard at work developing a complete rewrite of the project since September 2020, and we've finally done enough work to be able to release a beta version of this rewrite soon.

Because of many different factors, including the rewrite having diverged so much from the original code, the team has decided to give this version of RedWarn a brand new name. We've decided to call it Ultraviolet; electromagnetic radiation found past the opposite side of red on the visible light spectrum. Releases of the userscript will eventually be available on user pages of 10nm — 10 nanometers being the smallest possible wavelength of ultraviolet light. We're still working on getting a user-friendly version of Ultraviolet available; we ask for your patience as we get closer to releasing more feature-filled builds of Ultraviolet.

Is this a new script or just a rebranded version of RedWarn?

In essence, Ultraviolet is a rewritten version of RedWarn. That said, most of the original code has been removed or replaced. Significant work has also been done to make the process of using the script smooth and universal, removing nearly all of the UI-related bugs experienced in the current version of RedWarn. In addition, we're also working on Safari support, mobile usability, internationalization (other languages), wiki-specific configurations, a dark mode, and a lot more features that make Ultraviolet just work out of the box.

What this means for RedWarn

For a while, we've been holding off on development of further versions of RedWarn in favor of the rewrite. Expanding on the current code is a feat that would take a significant amount of time, on par with just rewriting the script itself. For now, RedWarn will still be supported and given security updates and patches for minor bugs. Once Ultraviolet has been completed and integrates all the features of RedWarn, we will decommission RedWarn and ask users to switch to the new userscript.

What this means for you, as a user

Stick to RedWarn while we're still working on implementing all the features of RedWarn into Ultraviolet. Rest assured, we will still provide updates that prioritize user safety and security, so you can still use RedWarn without the fear of compromise. We highly recommend to anyone who does counter-vandalism patrol often to use only RedWarn for now in order to avoid any catastrophic bugs. We're still finishing up on making the script backwards-compatible with your existing RedWarn configuration, after that we'll begin providing beta versions of Ultraviolet, so that anyone who wishes to use Ultraviolet before it has caught up with RedWarn can do so.

You'll be able to keep on using RedWarn until we've made our first release version (i.e. 1.0) of Ultraviolet. After that, we will require you to switch to Ultraviolet from RedWarn, as we will be dropping support for RedWarn. Although this may be a bit of a bother, we ask for your patience in this eventual transition.

What else this means

We'll be moving away from the RedWarn name entirely in the coming months. The team believes it's important to move away from the name, as most of Ultraviolet has been built from scratch and holds little to no resemblance to RedWarn (at least in terms of the code), and due to some other reasons.

This is a big milestone for us as userscript developers, and we hope to have your full support. In case you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask us about them below. Thanks!

Written by Chlod, Berrely, Sennecaster, and Remagoxer. Published by Chlod (RW • say hi!) 19:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC).

@Chlod, is there any update on the progress of this? There's no rush, just curious. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, @Qwerfjkl! The developers are currently busy on a few things, me specifically being busy (in recent months) with Deputy, although now that the bulk of the starting work on that has wrapped up, I can start working on Ultraviolet again. In the meantime, we've been doing some background work that'll help us facilitate the move from GitLab.org to Wikimedia GitLab, and we're currently planning how to perform that migration within the near future. Next up on the list of major features up for implementation is a module for marking pages for speedy deletion, so that's on my list of things to research. Hope this answers your question! Chlod (UV • say hi!) 03:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Chlod, is UV is in full swing operation or still in the process of moving? ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 21:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's still moving but close to completion, I would advise to remain with redwarn as UV is still in beta and doesn't have all the features of redwarn fully implemented. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 21:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up @Zippybonzo. ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 04:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@98Tigerius: All of our old RedWarn pages have moved already. We just haven't changed the top banner since UV doesn't have a 1.0 release yet. Right now, UV is already equipped with a lot of the basic features, and it's just a matter of porting all of the old features back in (and for MAT and Quick Templates, redesigning the process entirely). Implementing these would benefit a sprint, but it's slowly been just me doing the work as other members of the team have been busy with real life things (and so have I). I don't like giving timetables when I don't know if I can fulfill it, so there's no estimations on when UV 1.0 will be out. @Zippybonzo's right in that UV still lacks features, but if you don't use anything in Wikipedia:Ultraviolet/Compatibility matrix labeled "Not yet", then switching over shouldn't be an issue. Ultimately it's up to you on whether you'd like to switch or not. Chlod (UV • say hi!) 07:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Great and thanks a lot for giving more info about the progress of UV. I already used UV for short period but switch back to RW. You are doing well and all development team, keep it up! ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 13:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to ask how this is going since it's been quite a while; is there a timeline on it?

It looks like quick templating is the main feature still missing. Could the code for this just be copied from RW for a stopgap? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm also asking a question: When will 1.0 release? as it is 2025 and nothing has happened yet. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 08:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if it's no longer in active development. There hasn't been any news on it in a while. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 16:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf, on the vue branch it was last updated 3 weeks ago. Qwerfjkltalk 08:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see. I don't really keep track of that so I had no idea. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 13:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

No need to do anything about this now, but just a heads-up about new multi-level user warning template series uw-fv* for edits that add a citation that fails verification. The templates are {{uw-fv1}} and {{uw-fv2}}; thence it escalates to uw-unsourced 3 and 4. I would hold off adding it immediately to the project, until we see that it has staying power. At that point, the in-line documentation will need a tweak to drop the |noultraviolet=yes parameter. Feel free to do so when the time is right, or ping me (or anyone at WT:WARN) to take care of the doc change. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for RedWarn/UltraViolet! If a user has made multiple consecutive edits, and I revert the latest edit, RedWarn seems to revert all of the consecutive edits by the user. I've found that feature helpful sometimes, but other times, I've accidentally reverted multiple edits when I was only trying to revert the latest one. Is there a way to control whether RedWarn reverts multiple edits or just one? Cadddr (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I haven't found a setting to change this within RedWarn, but when I want to revert only one or some but not all of a user's consecutive edits to a page, I use the "restore this version" option to choose the version I want to retain, rather than using one of the quick rollback options. Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 03:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I do as well. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jiltedsquirrel - this is the way to do it! And the way I designed for it to work Ed (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I do a lot of recent change patrolling, and find that I use "No reliable source" and "Test edits" very frequently, so I would like them to be on the main toolbar for reverting edits. Not everyone will necessarily need the same options as frequently, so it would be good for it to be configurable so that people can adjust to their needs.

The UV preferences page already has a similar feature for the UI elements displayed in the top-right of a page. This would be exactly like that: a checklist with some default options, and it would be in the "Revert" section. This allows users to configure reverting options in accordance with the actions they most often use. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 12:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion @GearsDatapack, this is being tracked in T348003 and will hopefully be out with the rest of the Vue rewrite. ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 12:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah great! Might be worth linking to phabricator somewhere on this talk page so people can check there for existing feature requests and known bugs before posting here. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 13:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello all- Recently the RedWarn tools disappeared from my revision history interfaces. I can't find any info regarding why. Can anyone enlighten me? Eric ^talk 09:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Something like that happened to me a while back. What I did was erase my cookies and it did come back for me. Maybe the same could happen to you? Other than that, I don't know anything. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ivebeenhacked: Great, that did the trick, thanks! Eric ^talk 15:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I've tried this and it didn't work. Any other ideas? Feeglgeef (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Apart from clearing out cookies, I'm afraid I know not much now. Perhaps keep clearing your cookies until it comes back? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and if my memory serves right, I remember logging in on another computer and the buttons did reappear on that computer. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:41, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, @Feeglgeef, what was the result? I wanna see if these solutions worked or not. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. The buttons do reappear when I use another computer. Feeglgeef (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

My bad, I wasn't tryna sound stern. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:55, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be a button in RedWarn for reverting edits with a summary of "[[WP:3RR]]", and it seems to have been used by Asukite in a recent revert.

This button needs to be removed. The three-revert rule is something that can be enforced by administrators using blocks and perhaps also a revert combined with page protection (WP:PREFER), but this isn't something non-administrators (or administrators acting as normal editors) should ever do: Joining an edit war for the sole reason of there being an edit war. This fuels the fire, makes the situation worse and is unable to prevent the user from continuing. If the only reason a user has for reverting is "WP:3RR", then that revert should not happen. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

(I hope that whoever thought that adding this "feature" would be a good idea doesn't do this regularly themselves.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

My main motivation for reverting that was because I noticed the same material being removed repeatedly going back to 2025, however after getting into that mess I will agree with you that 3RR probably doesn't deserve its own button (and that perhaps I need to put less faith into the options available in some of my tools being policy-driven). If anything "disruptive editing" is probably sufficient in clear edge cases but editors should avail themselves of the noticeboard instead.ASUKITE 20:31, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Good to raise. But, the 3RR button is not enabled by default, and if memory serves me correctly (this was over 5 years ago) was added as a response to a private feature request I got from an admin who used RedWarn at the time. To revert with 3RR you would either have to go to the more options button or go into your preferences and add it manually. Ed (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, well. If there is currently no way to manually define a list of custom predefined revert reasons, adding that feature and removing 3RR from the built-in set of enable-able reasons would be the best solution, I think. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)